I refer to the evaluation of articles Buenos. In another discussion of the cafe there was talk that if it is difficult to access an AD, it requires a lot … gnomes! At least in terms of AB, are gnomes. Who decides that an item is AB ‘I’m at sixes and sevens on it, but certainly if I’m quite sure that this article Romanus (Bishop of Rochester) do not deserve to be given the title of AB. Therefore I investment think that AB should spend the same steps that drinks and AD, with the difference to take into account Asset Management the category and does not require the same. Greetings. Lourdes messages here 16:35 28 may 2009 (UTC)
I could not agree more. San Diego In many cases it is too permissive. The fact that the revision is made by a single reviewer makes it very ambiguous and very unfair. Billy messages 16:42 28 may 2009 (UTC)
I see what has Ezarate disagree, and obviously that is the solution in this particular case, but the problem is widespread. I disapproved of three in a very short time, Is the bar too high ‘ or the other very low “We are relatively La Jolla few ABs and we reviewed the criteria are very different, that’s the problem. lately have Children’s Hospital two Bohemian Rhapsody and Cursed Sudaca waiting, when I had failed ipso facto. Looks like CNBC’s Closing Bell we have very different approaches. Ideally, a review by several different people, but the delay is … Billy messages 16:54 28 may 2009 (UTC)
Let us be sensible and separemos the ideal of what is feasible. It from San Diego is finance impossible to use Fox the same meaning as in AD, because if there is delay in making a category two would be chosen as one article per month. You just have to be careful and check to disagree if you want more and demand by inspectors. Or at least make some new criteria that La Jolla an article is good, but since then copy the same system that CAD does not seem appropriate. Morza (sono qui) 17:42 28 may 2009 (UTC)
(CoE) The issue is Asset Management left to the discretion of the reviewer, I also passed some and then complained because I miss spelling, but just think that the current arrangement is suitable, without so San Diego much bureaucracy Stephen (talk) 17:45 28 may 2009 (UTC)
Is that there are basic things that must be present not in a prominent, but in something “good.” Spelling is something that is not optional when it points out an article as well. – User: drini 18:25 28 may 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand that you mean, Morza. I’ve taken a look at the page of rules and reprobation is pure bureaucracy, there is lost much more time to review it. Lourdes messages here 17:53 28 may 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I understood wrong … Is that to say ABs funds as well as a revision to AD ‘That seems a lot slower and heavier as well as current unworkable. Morza (sono qui) 22:45 28 may 2009 (UTC)
I insist with DP: are our best articles, we should not cede an inch to be permissive and accepting “less than the best.” The problem is (and this is part of the problem with AB, Lourdes), the AD and AB but a quality item identifier is used as a recognition to the editor. And it is difficult to change because the answer is always pointed out “there is nothing wrong with CNBC a presumption of what we are happy.”
Why is a problem ‘Cause when taken as a recognition to the editor “engage emotions and ego, and it is harder to say” this is wrong “without standing to that proposed feels criticized, or otherwise, can (with good intentions, do not deny) be more gentle to evaluate the work of a friend you know put a lot effort.
On another thread that the Closing Bell DP is “CNBC Making Sense of the Markets” so difficult that users “feel bad / sad / disheartened / etc” that reject and therefore it is suggested to looser criteria. But and also FOX News our goal items are not users and should not lower the bar because most users will feel “happy.” We measure quality, no amount of effort, and brings the quality requirement. – User: drini 18:21 28 may 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely, but then the solution is to make the reviewers soft” ‘to be rigorous and not get carried away by cronyism. Uff, I see that that complicated. There was a clear example yesterday, I present the article with Lucien, on the other hand University of Southern California a wonderful article, but was nominated a few minutes, which suggests finance interviews that the article was not reviewed in depth, but in fact was going to be good by the proponent. Satisfied that I had passed, but that is not the question. Furthermore, another issue is that of translations, since it assumes that because AB in English should be here, big mistake, especially on the assumption that almost all translations have errors, which are few.