Talk:Vince Gill/GA1

GA Review

Closing for relisting, reviewer is unavailable due to a wikibreak. CMD (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) 03:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk · contribs) 06:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

@All Tomorrows No Yesterdays: Any progress on this? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"He has been referred to as the "nicest guy in Nashville" due to his pleasant mannerisms and frequent contributions to charity." seems a bit WP:UNDUE. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All Tomorrows No Yesterdays, just a suggestion, but you can review more of the article at a time, instead of only a few comments at a time? TenPoundHammer you should probably ping All Tomorrows No Yesterdays after you have made changes, he shouldn't have to check the article history to see if it has been made or not. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is, my online presence is sporadic. I personally prefer making my comments one by one so that the nom isn't too discouraged but that comes at the cost of review time. I'm going to make some more right now though. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your presence is sporadic, you should probably make more remarks at a time, as slow reviews can also be discouraging too. Also, I was just making the suggestion, bcs I saw that you have three reviews open. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I personally meant sporadic as in, can be online for a minute then go offline for a day without warning (making thorough reviews a bit difficult). All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@All Tomorrows No Yesterdays: So far I did remove the comment you asked for. I would recommend you try to do a little more reviewing at once or hand this off to someone else. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would suggest you try to review everyone you are online, in case you think you might be unlikely to finish in a timely manner? And also not taking multiple reviews at once? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, I get your points, but @DoctorWhoFan91, this is exactly why I'm pretty discouraged from editing.I personally don't like being constantly critiqued on my edits and contributions, it feels a bit discouraging. I do have a lot to learn, I understand that, however, I think giving me time to improve and learn might be a better option since I don't really handle criticism too well. Its not like this is an RFA, plus if you have any problems with my contributions, just refer to my talk page. I don't think this GA review is the best place to talk about this. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 11:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.