Talk:Chinese economic reform/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Meishern (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Please give me 48 hours to read the article and check references. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- This article is not stable with all the reverts, edits and wars. There is no way GA can be considered since point # 4 is "The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars." I will not quick-fail it. Over the next 48 hours I will look over (1) edit history (2) references (3) issues that are being contested. If consensus/compromise is not reached, the article will be failed in 7 days. I suggest editors reach a compromise as it has been reached with much more emotionally charged articles. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that is a misconception. Basically, there was a dispute with a claim about premodern Chinese GDP per capita, but the relevant claim was later removed. I fail to see any further disputes with the article, as the disputing editor has no interest or had ever edited this topic before he entered a content dispute with me and decided to "edit" articles I wrote on other topics. I believe your examination will yield the same results.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Teeninvestor, you nominated this article and I just noticed you were blocked for 3 weeks (90 minutes after your above message) because of edits to this article. As I wrote in my introduction above, I will keep this on HOLD for 7 days. I will investigate the references. However, if there is no consensus, this article will Fail. It is unstable with multiple daily edits, and frequent reverts over the past 30 days. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that is a misconception. Basically, there was a dispute with a claim about premodern Chinese GDP per capita, but the relevant claim was later removed. I fail to see any further disputes with the article, as the disputing editor has no interest or had ever edited this topic before he entered a content dispute with me and decided to "edit" articles I wrote on other topics. I believe your examination will yield the same results.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
GA Nomination Failed[edit]
I would like to first say that the failure of the article is not due to its content, which I haven't read completely. Please read below:
1) According to Wikipedia rules, I could have quick-failed this article because point #4 of the rules states I can fail a GA nomination if "The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles . This article was. Yet, I put it on hold, to see if anyone wished to comment.
2)I asked editors for feedback to try to resolve this impasse on their talk pages, yet none was given.
3)The editor who nominated this article is not available for 3 weeks.
4)This article is unstable, with reverts, multiple edits, edit-wars and admin action due to comments related to this article.
There is no way an article can be GA if multiple editors still have unresolved issues regarding the content. Please resubmit the nomination when consensus is reached and the article becomes stable without recent, unresolved edit wars and multiple weekly heavy edits.