Talk:Frog pond effect/GA1
Backep1 (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Backep1 (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Backep1 (talk · contribs) 20:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I am surprised the article can be considered good. The section "Racial diversity in schools" is to me unintelligible.Backep1 (talk)
- The creating editor has not edited since December 14, and is unlikely to return to Wikipedia, as creating or improving an article was a college course requirement at UCLA. The assignment ended December 14. My involvement was that I took on the Did You Know review, and as a consequence, also edited the article (which I really shouldn't have). I have no training in social psychology, and no interest in improving the article. David notMD (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Backep1: What's the status of this review? Are you intending to quick-fail? Instructions are at WP:GANI, but I'm also happy to help out as needed. I agree with David notMD that the nominator is unlikely to return. Edge3 (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Edge3: Second 'ghosting', in that Backep1 has not made any contributions to Wikipedia since taking on this GA review (editor's first), and most recent edit prior to that was in July. The article may be better served during its descent into obscurity (20-30 viewings per day) if the GA nomination was removed rather than left as failed. David notMD (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @David notMD: 20-30 pageviews isn't that low, actually. I've worked on articles with fewer than 10 views per day, but maybe that's because I tend to work on areas of local interest. I'll go ahead and close this review as a quick-fail. I understand you were hoping to just revert the nom, but since the original editor submitted a valid GA nomination, I think a quick-fail is the quickest way for us to resolve this. (Otherwise, we'd have to go to WT:GAN to get this page deleted.) Edge3 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Edge3: Second 'ghosting', in that Backep1 has not made any contributions to Wikipedia since taking on this GA review (editor's first), and most recent edit prior to that was in July. The article may be better served during its descent into obscurity (20-30 viewings per day) if the GA nomination was removed rather than left as failed. David notMD (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Backep1: What's the status of this review? Are you intending to quick-fail? Instructions are at WP:GANI, but I'm also happy to help out as needed. I agree with David notMD that the nominator is unlikely to return. Edge3 (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Just to make sure that we follow the proper procedure, I'm just going to leave some closing comments below:
The original reviewer, Backep1, opened the review on January 3, 2021, but has not completed the review within the traditional 7-day period. The nominator, Tnbphd, has not edited any Wikipedia page for more than 30 days. Therefore, the nomination and review may both be considered abandoned. I am closing the review, and I believe quick-failure is appropriate under WP:GAFAIL because:
- the article has a valid cleanup banner: {{Lead too short}}.
- the article requires additional cleanup to comply with MOS:LEAD and MOS:WTW.
Edge3 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have no disagreement with the decision. David notMD (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)