User talk:Jerichi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Good Article Review; Jeri's Template 2 Agricultural extension 3 You helped choose Black hole as this week's WP:ACID winner 4 Your GA nomination of Crawdaunt

[edit] Good Article Review; Jeri's Template

DO NOT TOUCH. PLEASE.

The "-" indicates that something needs fixing, the "=" indicates that it is of decent quality, and the "+" indicates that it is of great quality, but mind you, this doesn't mean it is perfect. If there is a "~" next to it, that means it is borderline with the next rating. "=~" would be borderline "+" and "=" for example.

1. It is well written.

   a (Prose: ): Verdict:
   b (Structure: ): Verdict:
   c (MoS: ): Verdict:
   d (Jargon: ): Verdict:

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (References: ) Verdict:  :
   b (Inline citations: ): Verdict:
   c (Reliable: ): Verdict:
   d (OR: ) : Verdict:

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (Major aspects: ): Verdict:
   b (Focused: ): Verdict:

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (Fair representation: ): Verdict:
   b (All significant views: ): Verdict:

5. It is stable.

   () Verdict:

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (Tagged and captioned: ): Verdict:
   b (Lack of images does not in itself exclude GA: ): Verdict:
   c (Non-free images have fair use rationales: ): Verdict:

[edit] Agricultural extension

I believe I addressed every issue in agricultural extension that you gave a "-". Other than that you suggested one section should be better referenced. The user who was the largest contributor to this page has agreed to do this, but it will not happen in the seven day hold period for GA review. If you get a chance, please have a look and see if you are comforable promoting the article now. ike9898 22:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As of this moment, I cannot promote the article to GA status, as for I am required to wait for one more day before this article can be taken off hold. Since everything that I marked as "-" otherwise was dealt with, and there is no way to fix this by the time alloted, I see no reason not to promote it. If it was something more serious, I would have no choice, but since this is a minor and a "just to make sure" thing, I see no reason not to make it a good article. Jeri-kun 22:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I doesn't really matter to me, but I think you're misunderstanding the "on hold" rules. I think the intention of the rule is that if you place an article on hold, you have to give the nominator (or other editors) at least two days to address critisisms before failing the article. I don't think the two day minimum applies to promoting the article. What purpose would that serve? But seriously, I don't care, and wouldn't get in an argument over this. Take it easy, ike9898 01:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Black hole as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Black hole was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

AzaBot 01:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of Crawdaunt

The article Crawdaunt you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Crawdaunt for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Funpika 00:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)