Talk:Somebody That I Used to Know/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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: Cmbcmb999 (talk · contribs) 08:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am going to start the review of Somebody That I Used To Know. Thanks! Cmbcmb999 (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Nice --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 08:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have thoroughly reviewed the aritcle and have found: The article has reliable sources, it is completely un-biased, it is well-written, it is factually accurate and it is stable. It is now listed as a Good Article.

Thank you Cmbcmb999 (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Me and Shaidar cuebiyar put a lot of effort in the article =) Anything to be fixed? or is everything allright? --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 14:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I personally don't think anything needs to be fixed.

Not to rain on the parade here, but I find this review a bit suspect. While I am sure that Cmbcmb999 was acting in good faith by reviewing this, s/he has only 48 edits to articlespace out of 139 total—not an experienced editor at all. I don't mean to WP:BITE here, but I'm not convinced that Cmb really knows what "good" content looks like. If this had been a more thorough review, I'd be less inclined to bring this up, but it seems that Cmb gave the article a quick once-over and judged it "good" without a real understanding of the process. This article is a strong candidate, IMO, but it deserves a closer look than was given here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2012 (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.