Wikipedia:Peer review/Nancy Cartwright/archive1
Nancy Cartwright[edit]
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
This page is at GAC at the moment, but I would like to have it at FAC by the end of the month. Any comments are more than welcome. Thanks. -- Scorpion0422 14:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Comment about eligibility for Peer Review Being a current GAC, I don't think this should also be considered at Peer Review. I don't know if there is a formal prohibition, but I think GACs and FACs ought to finish and be given some period of time after for reviewers' comments there to be absorbed fully, before an article should be eligible to be submitted to PR. Sorry, my comment is about process, not about your article. doncram (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is no formal prohibition. People do it all the time. My personal view is that you shoudn't, not just because it's a bit greedy to consume two lots of review resources simultaneously, but because (a) you may get contradictory advice from the two review processes, and (b) as a result of recommendations arising from either review process the article could change significantly, making review comments out of date. The nominator may like to consider withdrawing it from PR and re-presenting it when it has passed GAC. That would make life simpler for everyone. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, withdrawn. -- Scorpion0422 19:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is appreciated, especially with the current PR backlog. Good luck with the GAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, withdrawn. -- Scorpion0422 19:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is no formal prohibition. People do it all the time. My personal view is that you shoudn't, not just because it's a bit greedy to consume two lots of review resources simultaneously, but because (a) you may get contradictory advice from the two review processes, and (b) as a result of recommendations arising from either review process the article could change significantly, making review comments out of date. The nominator may like to consider withdrawing it from PR and re-presenting it when it has passed GAC. That would make life simpler for everyone. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)