User:Kmarinas86/GA reviews received

GA Review of Raelian Church

I am undertaking the latest review of this article, and will complete a thorough review in the next 24 hours. In the meantime, I have made a comment on the talk page about a problem that was immediately apparent to me. You should have enough time to sort this out before I complete my review. Best wishes --Fritzpoll 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: My assessment

I think I mentioned on the talk page that I was returning to review the remaining sections shortly - there are some significant changes to be made that I identified, and I felt you could get started on those whilst waiting for me to complete the review. Any sections that I missed out in the way were ok. What do you feel I have not adequately assessed so far? --Fritzpoll 15:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You are great. Thanks. No problem.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My review of your article

Yes, but what you did was not reorganize the article but merely hobble together three articles that were not well organized to begin with. Case in point: in the opening paragraphs you write twice that Claude is the founder of the movement, and, just for good measure, add that he is one of the prominent Raelists. Don't you think saying it once would have been enough?

Look at User:Ravpapa/My Drafts. I have tried to rewrite the lead of the article, and wrote an outline for how I think the rest of the article might well be organized. (I didn't include all the references, cross-references and other stuff that you need to put in - just trying to give you an idea of how I think the text should look.)

--Ravpapa 06:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the template. This really gives the article some shape. Thanks for you excellent template!◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 08:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reticence to sink a huge amount of work into this project, when you feel the topic is already adequately covered. And you needn't worry about my voting against the article, as I tend not to give negative votes (I mean, who am I?). On the other hand, I doubt very much that other reviewers will support GA status for this article, as it currently stands.

In any case, thank you again for introducing me to the subject. I may just try to look up a Raelian gang in Israel, if there is one. --Ravpapa 06:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest GA review

Hi there. I realise you may be feeling like you are just getting a run-around and not getting anywhere with the GA process. I'm going to focus on the Raëlian Church article in isolation and assess this strictly by the GA criteria. The main problems seem to be in the writing and I'm making heavy copy-edits as I go along. If I change the meaning in any places from what you intend, this just means I haven't understood what you intended to say. Hopefully this will just take a few days. All the best Tim Vickers 02:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Article is now on hold. The comments on the talk page relate only to the clarity of the text. All the best Tim Vickers 17:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

GA on Raelian Beliefs

I recently passed this article as GA. It has come to my attention that Image:Yes to human cloning.png does not have a fair use rationale. Please add one or the article will have to be delisted. Dagomar 23:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the image. The image is not even necessary nor appropriate for the article's topic.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 01:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks Dagomar 00:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Rael vs. statistics

Actually, Colin makes some quite good points and until that is hammered out, I highly doubt any further intervention would change anything. Also, I would appreciate if you could heed the wish quite clearly expressed at the top of my talk page. I will comment further on a FLC if and when I find it pertinent. Circeus 23:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not so awesome

No, I can't bring this up to FA level. With a few day's work I could polish it to the point where it could pass GA. However, if you look at my last FA Oxidative phosphorylation, you can see that this is far away from the kind of standard people are applying to the FA process these days. If I had unlimited time I could help you with this, but I'm already committed to fixing Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide over this weekend, in response to an external expert review: looking at the FA candidate Anabolic steroid, and I also need to work on Organelle. All these articles are higher priority for me than this interesting but not really very important topic. Good luck with this article, but I'm pretty sure it won't pass FA this time around. All the best Tim Vickers 22:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Raëlian history and beliefs

I have partially reviewed the article. I have stressed it in the talk page and I will stress it again, this is my first review so bear with me. As a result, I requested a second opinion on the matter, but have a look at the comments that I made, for further improvement. Thanks. σмgнgσмg 06:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Claude Vorilhon

The article Claude Vorilhon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, 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 Talk:Claude Vorilhon for things needed to be addressed. SriMesh | talk 04:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Claude Vorilhon

The article Claude Vorilhon you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Claude Vorilhon for eventual comments about the article. Well done! You have patiently edited this page in compliance with several requests. It has come a long way. SriMesh | talk 22:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your copyedit request

On 20 October 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Raëlism. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we apologize. Since your request, this article may have been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Raëlism GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Raëlism for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned on the review page that you made changes to the article, but nothing has changed. Is it possible you didn't save your edits? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Crap! Going to fix this soon...Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 03:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Done! Everything (except the fair use rationale) was redo, but it only took 30 minutes this time. :)Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 04:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a bummer. One time I did an entire GA review, taking me an hour and a half, and then my browser just closed. Fortunately if that happens now, Firefox can usually retrieve edits to an article even if they haven't been saved. Anyway, all of the issues have been addressed except for one. I'd like to see the history section expanded a bit more. I left instructions on the review page. Once the summary is added to the article, it can also be used to expand the lead of the History of Raëlism article (which is also on the list of old GAs that need to be Swept). Once the issue is addressed, the article will likely be kept. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Raëlian beliefs and practices

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Raëlian beliefs and practices/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)