Wikipedia:Peer review/Charles Lindbergh/archive2: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Charles Lindbergh: note |
→Charles Lindbergh: archiving; possible improper nomination, missing nominator |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Please do not use level 1-3 section headings or horizontal rules in this peer review. Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics, and do not paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead. Peer review pages should not be moved. |
Please do not use level 1-3 section headings or horizontal rules in this peer review. Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics, and do not paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead. Peer review pages should not be moved. |
||
--> |
--> |
||
'''This peer review discussion has been closed.'''<br/> <noinclude>[[Category:February 2012 peer reviews]]</noinclude> |
|||
{{Peer review page|topic=history}} |
|||
I've listed this article for peer review because… I think that it is a trifle bloated and quite oddly written. It may also contain material of trivial or no relevance to the biography, or which may be a copyvio. |
I've listed this article for peer review because… I think that it is a trifle bloated and quite oddly written. It may also contain material of trivial or no relevance to the biography, or which may be a copyvio. |
||
Revision as of 16:55, 29 February 2012
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I think that it is a trifle bloated and quite oddly written. It may also contain material of trivial or no relevance to the biography, or which may be a copyvio.
Thanks, Collect (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please explain what exactly you mean by "oddly written" and identify what specific material are you claiming as being in copyright violation. Thank you. Centpacrr (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Question
Collect, PR is for eliciting feedback for article improvement, not for dispute resolutions. It seems like you think you know what may or may not be wrong with the article, although Centpacrr (one of the major contributors) seems to disagree. What do you wish to accomplish here at PR? María (yllosubmarine) 22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- See the extensive discussions here and here where I have addressed User:Collect's issue with a well sourced single word ("fleeing") in great detail. His/her posting here thus seems to me to be more for the purpose of canvassing and/or forum shopping then any improvement of this long standing and mature article. Centpacrr (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) I haven't read the article in detail -- the nomination statement confused me, which is why I commented. Like I said before, PR isn't for dispute resolution, so this really isn't the place to discuss such things. Unless Collect wishes to partake in the review process, perhaps this PR should be archived so that proper dispute resolution can take place on the talk page. María (yllosubmarine) 23:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's fine with me (closing this discussion) as here is clearly not the right place to address this matter (which has already been discussed at great length in the two threads linked above), and User:Collect has also failed to answer the questions I posed to explain what he/she means by "oddly written", copyright violation, etc. Holding a third parallel discussion here over the use of a single word seems to me to just be a waste of time. Centpacrr (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- By his/her silence, this request appears to have been abandoned by its proposer. Centpacrr (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's fine with me (closing this discussion) as here is clearly not the right place to address this matter (which has already been discussed at great length in the two threads linked above), and User:Collect has also failed to answer the questions I posed to explain what he/she means by "oddly written", copyright violation, etc. Holding a third parallel discussion here over the use of a single word seems to me to just be a waste of time. Centpacrr (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) I haven't read the article in detail -- the nomination statement confused me, which is why I commented. Like I said before, PR isn't for dispute resolution, so this really isn't the place to discuss such things. Unless Collect wishes to partake in the review process, perhaps this PR should be archived so that proper dispute resolution can take place on the talk page. María (yllosubmarine) 23:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)