User:Skully Collins/GA reviews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Similar to how eBay customers can look at someone else's selling history, this page is designed for those who wish to comment on how well this user reviews Good article candidates and whether this user did pass or fail unfairly. As well as having feedback from other users about how well I review articles, it is also here, as I said, for other users whose articles they've extensively edited and are being reviewed by me to take a look at how "well" I reviewed previous articles and also maybe use for "evidence" if the article goes for a Good article review.

[edit] Reviews FAQs

To place your review of this user please use the following example to make things a lot easier for future users.

The table is split into a number of columns,

  • Date - The date of the review
  • Article - The article being reviewed
  • Outcome - Specify whether the article either passed or failed
  • Fairness - Out of 5, how fair was the review? - Please use {{Rating-5}}
  • Advice - This user will try and give out some future advice for further development of the article, out of 5, how helpful was this user's advice?
  • Comments - Since the last two columns only specify two factors of a review, this column is for the user to express other comments about an article's review. Pleas try and keep critisms civil and polite, thank you.
  • Overall satisfaction - Out of 10, considering the above, how well reviewed was the article in question? Please use {{Rating-10}}
  • User - basically, just sign (~~~~) it.

[edit] Example

Date Article Outcome Fairness Advice Comments Overall User
29 May 2007 Example Passed 3.5/5 stars 4/5 stars None 8/10 stars Phill talk Edits Review this GA review! 13:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews

Date Article Outcome Fairness Advice Comments Overall
4 May 2007 Bruce Bowen Passed 4.5/5 stars 4.5/5 stars He reviewed the article relying heavily on the GA criteria and was thorough in the assessment 9/10 stars Chensiyuan 12:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
29 May 2007 Cesc Fabregas Passed 4.5/5 stars 4.5/5 stars He was detailed in his concerns, which were all legitimate ones, and reasonable in handling and evaluating my responses. Overall, his experience shows. 9/10 stars Chensiyuan 12:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
29 May 2007 San Juan, Puerto Rico Passed 5/5 stars 4/5 stars Suggestions were concise and straightforward, based on GA criteria. Shows a strong position on maintaining NPOV in articles, which I also strongly support. 9.5/10 stars Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 10:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
29 May 2007 San Juan, Puerto Rico Passed 5/5 stars 5/5 stars Very detailed review, offered useful advice advice for the future even if it wasn't really needed for GA that is the exact definition of a helpful person 10/10 stars 凶 13:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
04 June 2007 Macau Passed 5/5 stars 5/5 stars offered clear and precise advice for the improvement of article 10/10 stars Guia Hill 11:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
11 June 2007 Henrik Larsson Passed 4.5/5 stars 5/5 stars Went through all the criteria and listed what was done and what wasn't in a clear manner. 9/10 stars Mattythewhite 15:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
5 July 2007 Emile Heskey Passed 5/5 stars 5/5 stars Review was accurate in the improvements needed and helped get the article to a higher quality. 10/10 stars 09:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
20 August 2007 Joey Barton Passed 5/5 stars 5/5 stars Usual; detailed review outlining problems. Also gave comments for helping reach FA. 10/10 stars Mattythewhite 14:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)