Talk:Sigismund III Vasa/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Closing discussion - reinstating GAN, change to subpage 2. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:47, 23 July 2021 (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

Reviewer: SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs) 14:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

As long as the lead's first line only has bold type on the name form used for this king in Poland, but not that used in Sweden, I will oppose this nomination. It now looks like he was called Sigismund III Vasa in both countries, which is wrong on 2 counts. See talk there. I also think the nomination should be made by someone other than the dominant contributor (but that's maybe just how I feel). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SergeWoodzing, the person who opens the review is responsible for making an entire review, not just oppose for a single issue that can be rectified. As best I can tell, this is your first attempt at a GA review; did you intend to do an entire review to the GA criteria per the reviewing instructions? If not, and you aren't willing to do a thorough job, then we should find another reviewer to take over. Your inexperience is clear from your statement that the nomination should have been made by someone who isn't the dominant contributor. To the contrary, it is very typical for the person who has contributed most significantly to an article to be the GA nominator, and indeed expected that if someone wishes to nominate the article who is not a significant contributor, they should consult with those who are on the article's talk page prior to making a nomination.

Fortunately, there is a GAN backlog drive going on at the moment, so I can list this as a review needing a new reviewer on the drive page. Please let me know how you plan to proceed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose the nomination for the vital, essential, central, definitive reason given, which the dominant user has shown h-self absolutely unwilling to see "rectified". Some of the rest of what you wrote is like Greek to me. No, I am not "willing to do a thorough job" if that means learning a lot of new rules, regulations, format and rigmarole. Do what you please with this. Sorry if I upset anyone by starting this off in a horrendously inappropriate manner. There's just so much that many of us experienced users are willing to learn and march after, especially if our WP time is limited, as mine is. If you can get the issue reviewed in impressively strict and rigid format, which nobody can attack, that would be great. I obviously do not know how to do that, nor am I interested in learning it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To get this right - you believe that this article isn't suitable for GA because of one phrase isn't in bold? I recommend talking about this on the talk page - not derailing a GAN review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski, I concur. Ping User:BlueMoonset - this review needs to be invalidated, and the article needs to be restored to its GA queue. User:SergeWoodzing is cautioned that GA review process should not be confusing with the article's talk page, and trying to derail the GAN process with a tiny issue like this is a WP:POINTless disruption. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 23 July 2021 (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.