31:
842:
117:. I am not going to contest your review but I have outlined my concerns on the talk page for your own reference, if you care. Thanks for taking the time to review the article and please view my comments how they are meant, as an attempt to outline my concerns for your own reference. Do with them as you please. If you are an active reviewer perhaps you can keep them in mind in the future.
65:
unlike the GA and FA which go through a
Knowledge wide standardized process. So even though they're all ratings, it kinda functions like two separate rating scales. What it equates out to is that the A-Class rating does not first require a GA-Class rating and the GA-Class rating does not first require an A-Class rating. Hope I explained it well enough. (
133:
trying to cover this war, the source material is often so convoluted its accuracy comes into question. Alot of what was written is based on eyewitness, or secondary witness accounts. It's like playing historical sleuth. The main issue I see, is that it is impossible to know if there is an actual discrepancy without violating
278:
disingenuous to pass an article as a GA in a form that I know it won't be in for very long, and partly because I'd like to see your comments on any new additions I make. Despite this, given the current GAC backlog, I might prefer the third option to the second. In any event, I'd like your thoughts as to how to proceed.
904:. Your responses were polite, respectful, and matter-of-fact, even when it was evident that you disagreed with some of my comments and recommendations. This has been one of the most civil and polite discussions I have had recently with another user where we disagreed on some issues. Thank you very much, --
455:
uses a base map from The Atlas of Canada, which encourages public use but asks that commercial users get written permission before using. Does that make the base map not usable on
Knowledge, or is it OK to license it as PD-Canada (or something else) even though it has this restriction? I'd appreciate
363:
Responded there yet again. Incidentally, I hope I'm not coming across as quarrelsome; I do appreciate the thoroughness of the review (I have it in my head that this may make FA at some point, and the more points raised in the relatively laid back confines of a GA review, the fewer will need to be in
277:
My preference would be the first option. However, that's contingent on you being willing to extend the hold period and redo some of the work you've already done (since the new prose I add would need to be evaluated against the GA criteria). I don't care for the third option, partly because it seems
262:
Hi
Jappalang - in the last couple of days, I've come to the conclusion that there's quite a bit that I can do to improve this article (this conclusion is in part thanks to your comments at the GA review, and even more so as a result of the sources you mentioned). I suspect that it will take me about
471:
Thank you very much for your clear and thorough explanation. This will be most helpful in the present case of the
Polaris article and also in future cases. I'm trying to identify as many image license problems as I can at PR and elsewhere and suggesting fixes before they gum up the works at GAN or
132:
As I said I am not that concerned about it. To be honest, given the discrepancy, I felt it was better to exclude the detail, as it is highly likely that it isn't even true. (Unfortunately I was inactive when you reviewed the article or we could have fleshed this out then). That's the problem with
64:
Well, my initial assumption about the A-Class was that it was a rating higher than GA. Kinda like a half-way point between GA and FA. What I've come to find out is that it is still very similar to the Stub, Start, and B-Class, just with higher standards. It is assigned by specific WikiProjects,
424:. As I say there, this is a good article. My concern is the use of the three fair use images. I also did a little copy editing. A few were mistakes that I fixed, but feel free to change what I did. Regards, —
933:
is the request from an "image specialists" to determine if the images should stay in the article or not. If you can weigh in it would be greatly appreciated but if not I understand. Thanks for you time.--
1029:
Hi. As annoying to me as it is, I cannot find time to get back to the article now. I guess you can fail it, and I will get through the unanswered comments when I have a bit of time, and renominate it.
770:
in the process of correcting the many deficiencies you identified. I will continue to work on getting appropriate images into the article. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you out!
378:
Thanks again for all your work on this. There's no doubt it improved the article enormously. One further question: do you think the current title for the article is the best one? I considered
181:
Thanks for reviewing the article. I am on holiday this week and may not be able to spend much time online. If I don't address your issues this week, I'll definitely be able to do so after.
137:, at least in this case. One source claims bayonets made them run, another claims contact of muskets with chest made them run, because it had a bayonet? Hard to say, but I am certain that
206:
Wow..... that was some impressive review, even if the article didn't pass. I'm awed at how many errors you got to nail down and correct accurately. I still have so much to learn.... :O --
364:
the pressure cooker of FAC). I've seen plenty of give and take on both sides, and I'd characterize our remaining disagreement here as a reasonable one among reasonable people.
849:, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See
391:
373:
358:
344:
330:
316:
302:
69:
59:
75:
251:
103:
287:
538:
1018:
608:
594:
580:
168:
150:
797:
whether the image is ok at is or whether a fair use+copyright tag need to be added. I think it's the latter but you would know better than I.
819:
779:
481:
215:
758:
864:
707:
690:
article, which is the family name, Rohani or Hashim? I ask because it seems odd to me to refer to a professor by her first name... Tks! •
957:
674:
524:
789:
Hey. I know you're busy, but I have an image issue holding up a Good
Article nom, so I am double checking with an image expert. Would
733:
794:
512:
335:
Back in your court (and incidentally, thanks for the work you're doing on
Commons to improve the image description pages I put up).
889:
507:
201:
196:
465:
126:
991:
790:
257:
942:
236:
715:
694:
659:
814:
753:
437:
836:
557:
155:
Anyway, I hope I wasn't to harsh, as I am trying to be the newer, nicer IvoShandor. The one who doesn't want to bring
808:
793:
be a violation of freedom of panorama? The statue was erected in 1986, and the author is still alive. Let us know at
520:
513:
452:
1012:
985:
700:
495:
191:
263:
a week to finish this work off. With regards to the GA review, that leaves (as I see it) three routes we can go:
640:
487:
273:
I give a quick fix to the issues you've identified, you pass it as a GA, and then I make the larger improvements.
176:
1041:
870:
Can you please remove your interspersed threaded comments from the middle of my GA Review, and move them to the
915:
564:
442:
80:
I've commented on the article's talk page. I just wanted to let you know that my assessment mirrors your own.
267:
You leave the nomination on hold for about a week, and finish the review once I finish improving the article.
108:
963:
920:
760:
726:
633:
387:
369:
354:
340:
326:
312:
298:
283:
38:
767:
645:
571:
was before I gave it a GAR. So the question is, will you be active enough to work out the problems?
970:
Hi, I have began assessing your concerns and would like to see if most have been fixed. Thank you!
901:
680:
523:
and placed it on hold for seven days with a few (very minor) concerns. You can see my review here:
242:
Thank you for the GA! I learned something from your work on the image rationales. Thank you again!
114:
722:
687:
568:
533:
488:
421:
247:
232:
1004:
977:
784:
409:
383:
365:
350:
336:
322:
308:
294:
279:
929:
article. It has been up for GA for some time and it looks as if the only thing holding up the
925:
Hi, I was hoping you could provide a second opinion for a couple of images in question on the
766:
Thank you very much for passing the article, Jappalang. I have learned quite a bit about the
749:
379:
220:
211:
964:
850:
604:
590:
576:
553:
503:
187:
164:
146:
122:
8:
775:
739:
477:
461:
99:
47:
17:
744:
Thanks for all of your time and effort in reviewing Kenzo Tange and promoting it to GA.
930:
543:
528:
448:
433:
243:
228:
1024:
953:
938:
895:
670:
655:
625:
66:
745:
207:
1037:
998:
971:
832:
825:
600:
586:
572:
549:
499:
270:
I withdraw the nomination, finish improving the article, and then re-nominate it.
182:
160:
142:
118:
729:, so I put it under the latter; move it around if you like. Congrats again... •
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
911:
885:
860:
846:
798:
771:
650:
I think I've answered your concerns, subject to quibbles which I've laid out.--
473:
457:
417:
410:
81:
227:
Thank you for reviewing the article! The image rationales have been reworked.
730:
704:
691:
425:
221:
949:
934:
821:
666:
651:
134:
618:
451:, and I have an image question that goes into a gray area beyond my ken.
156:
900:
Thank you, Jappalang, for your tone throughout the discussion we had at
725:! I wasn't sure whether to list it under "Television" or "Animation" on
1033:
948:
Thanks for stopping by and doing an image review, much appreciated.--
926:
906:
880:
855:
113:
Just wanted to let you know that I disagreed with your GA review for
307:
I think it's ready for another look. Thanks for your patience.
841:
665:
Thanks for the promotion. The OTRS tag is now confirmed.--
498:, Freelancer is on a Good Article Review. Please comment.
997:
Thanks for the review and the research you put into it.
599:Letting you know that I delisted Ninja Gaiden.
548:Quick question. How active are you right now?
293:Great - hope to report back in a week or so.
878:all of my GA Review comments? Thank you, --
60:Re:Difference between A-class and GA-class?
853:for things which need to be addressed. --
699:Tks for the reply... there's a comment at
525:Talk:Barbarian II: The Dungeon of Drax/GA1
76:Second opinion for Bega schoolgirl murders
795:Talk:Coat of arms of Albany, New York/GA1
567:a GAR. The way it is reminds me of what
447:Hi Jappalang. I'm doing a GA review of
14:
845:. The article is close to meeting the
791:File:Coat of arms of Albany statue.jpg
563:Yes, actually. I'm planning on giving
420:, for GA and have left my comments at
321:I've responded to all of your points.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
382:as well. I'm personally undecided.
25:
23:
585:Good idea. Thanks for the advice.
453:Image:Polaris Expedition route.jpg
24:
1052:
521:Barbarian II: The Dungeon of Drax
514:Barbarian II: The Dungeon of Drax
840:
701:Talk:Kampung Boy (TV series)/GA1
202:Hongcheng Magic Liquid GA review
29:
565:Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game)
494:Hey oh. I'm here to tell that
349:Responded on the review page.
258:Brownlee sex scandal GA review
13:
1:
992:11:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
943:22:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
675:13:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
660:16:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
508:04:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
482:16:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
466:00:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
416:I am reviewing your article,
392:02:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
374:13:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
359:09:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
345:08:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
331:07:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
317:16:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
197:06:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
169:12:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
151:12:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
127:08:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
104:01:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
916:15:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
890:04:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
865:20:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
815:16:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
780:14:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
761:World's littlest skyscraper
754:19:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
734:10:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
727:Knowledge:Good articles/Arts
716:Knowledge:Good articles/Arts
708:03:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
438:22:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
303:08:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
288:08:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
252:07:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
237:03:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
216:17:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
70:03:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
7:
958:02:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
695:12:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
641:02:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
10:
1057:
1042:12:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
157:about the end of the world
1019:12:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
609:00:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
595:23:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
581:20:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
558:16:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
539:01:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
456:any advice you can give.
902:Talk:The Kampung Boy/GA1
839:has been placed on hold
723:Kampung Boy (TV series)
688:Kampung Boy (TV series)
569:Freelancer (video game)
489:Freelancer (video game)
422:Talk:Alisia Dragoon/GA1
177:Stanley Internment Camp
115:Attack at Ament's Cabin
443:Image license question
1032:Thanks for the input.
847:good article criteria
623:Thanks, I've replied
380:MacMillan v. Brownlee
109:Comments on GA review
42:of past discussions.
965:Talk:Case Closed/GA1
921:Image review request
851:Talk:The Kampung Boy
519:Hi, I have reviewed
950:Mo Rock...Monstrous
935:Mo Rock...Monstrous
835:you nominated as a
18:User talk:Jappalang
810:Operation Big Bear
449:Polaris expedition
1015:
1007:
988:
980:
956:
941:
646:Bring Us Together
384:Sarcasticidealist
366:Sarcasticidealist
351:Sarcasticidealist
337:Sarcasticidealist
323:Sarcasticidealist
309:Sarcasticidealist
295:Sarcasticidealist
280:Sarcasticidealist
195:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1048:
1013:
1005:
1001:
986:
978:
974:
952:
937:
844:
811:
805:
686:Hello... In the
681:Dr Rohani Hashim
636:
628:
536:
531:
430:
185:
96:
91:
86:
33:
32:
26:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1027:
999:
972:
968:
923:
898:
833:The Kampung Boy
829:
826:The Kampung Boy
813:
809:
799:
787:
764:
742:
718:
683:
648:
634:
626:
621:
546:
534:
529:
517:
492:
445:
426:
414:
260:
225:
204:
179:
111:
102:
92:
87:
82:
78:
62:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1054:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1021:
967:
962:
961:
960:
922:
919:
897:
894:
893:
892:
828:
824:nomination of
818:
807:
786:
785:Image question
783:
763:
757:
741:
738:
737:
736:
717:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
682:
679:
678:
677:
647:
644:
635:new photo poll
620:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
545:
542:
516:
511:
491:
486:
485:
484:
444:
441:
418:Alisia Dragoon
413:
411:Alisia Dragoon
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
275:
274:
271:
268:
259:
256:
255:
254:
224:
219:
203:
200:
178:
175:
174:
173:
172:
171:
110:
107:
98:
77:
74:
61:
58:
56:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1053:
1044:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1030:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1008:
1002:
996:
995:
994:
993:
989:
984:
981:
975:
966:
959:
955:
951:
947:
946:
945:
944:
940:
936:
932:
928:
918:
917:
913:
909:
908:
903:
891:
887:
883:
882:
877:
874:of the page,
873:
869:
868:
867:
866:
862:
858:
857:
852:
848:
843:
838:
834:
827:
823:
817:
816:
812:
806:
804:
803:
796:
792:
782:
781:
777:
773:
769:
762:
756:
755:
751:
747:
735:
732:
728:
724:
721:Good work on
720:
719:
709:
706:
702:
698:
697:
696:
693:
689:
685:
684:
676:
672:
668:
664:
663:
662:
661:
657:
653:
643:
642:
638:
637:
630:
629:
610:
606:
602:
598:
597:
596:
592:
588:
584:
583:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
561:
560:
559:
555:
551:
541:
540:
537:
532:
526:
522:
515:
510:
509:
505:
501:
497:
490:
483:
479:
475:
470:
469:
468:
467:
463:
459:
454:
450:
440:
439:
435:
431:
429:
423:
419:
412:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
376:
375:
371:
367:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
348:
347:
346:
342:
338:
334:
333:
332:
328:
324:
320:
319:
318:
314:
310:
306:
305:
304:
300:
296:
292:
291:
290:
289:
285:
281:
272:
269:
266:
265:
264:
253:
249:
245:
244:ItsLassieTime
241:
240:
239:
238:
234:
230:
229:ItsLassieTime
223:
222:Cootie (game)
218:
217:
213:
209:
199:
198:
193:
189:
184:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
153:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
131:
130:
129:
128:
124:
120:
116:
106:
105:
101:
97:
95:
90:
85:
73:
71:
68:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1031:
1028:
1009:
982:
969:
924:
905:
899:
879:
875:
871:
854:
837:good article
831:The article
830:
801:
800:
788:
765:
743:
649:
632:
627:YellowMonkey
624:
622:
547:
518:
493:
446:
427:
415:
276:
261:
226:
205:
183:Hong Qi Gong
180:
141:cannot say.
138:
112:
93:
88:
83:
79:
67:Guyinblack25
63:
55:
43:
37:
746:Kenchikuben
740:Kenzo Tange
208:Enric Naval
36:This is an
1000:DragonZero
973:DragonZero
601:GamerPro64
587:GamerPro64
573:GamerPro64
550:GamerPro64
544:Activeness
500:GamerPro64
161:IvoShandor
143:IvoShandor
119:IvoShandor
1025:GA Review
954:(leech44)
939:(leech44)
927:Bobby Orr
896:Thank you
802:Wizardman
772:DiverDave
474:Finetooth
458:Finetooth
1014:Contribs
987:Contribs
731:Ling.Nut
705:Ling.Nut
692:Ling.Nut
530:Canadian
428:Mattisse
192:Contribs
759:GA for
667:Wehwalt
652:Wehwalt
39:archive
931:review
872:bottom
1034:D2306
876:below
820:Your
472:FAC.
135:WP:OR
16:<
1038:talk
1006:Talk
979:Talk
912:talk
907:Cirt
886:talk
881:Cirt
861:talk
856:Cirt
776:talk
750:talk
703:. •
671:talk
656:talk
605:talk
591:talk
577:talk
554:talk
535:Paul
504:talk
496:here
478:talk
462:talk
434:Talk
388:talk
370:talk
355:talk
341:talk
327:talk
313:talk
299:talk
284:talk
248:talk
233:talk
212:talk
188:Talk
165:talk
147:talk
123:talk
100:talk
89:ƈơƅƅ
768:MOS
639:)
619:NDD
94:ơƚɑ
1040:)
1017:)
990:)
914:)
888:)
863:)
822:GA
778:)
752:)
673:)
658:)
607:)
593:)
579:)
556:)
527:.
506:)
480:)
464:)
436:)
390:)
372:)
357:)
343:)
329:)
315:)
301:)
286:)
250:)
235:)
214:)
190:-
167:)
149:)
125:)
84:Ɛƚ
72:)
1036:(
1010:·
1003:(
983:·
976:(
910:(
884:(
859:(
774:(
748:(
669:(
654:(
631:(
603:(
589:(
575:(
552:(
502:(
476:(
460:(
432:(
386:(
368:(
353:(
339:(
325:(
311:(
297:(
282:(
246:(
231:(
210:(
194:)
186:(
163:(
159:.
145:(
139:I
121:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.