Hello, Ken. Welcome to Wikipedia. If you have any questions about the site there are plenty of avenues you can explore to get help but please feel free to write to me on my talk page if you think I can be of assistance. I'm currently using the site daily and should be able to answer any queries same or next day.

The short article that I'm trying to have reviewed is William Bedle. It is short because of limited surviving data from the early eighteenth century. In the cricket project WP:CRIC — which you're invited to join if you're interested in cricket — we have a huge number of short articles (indeed, we reportedly have 0.46% of all articles on the site!) and I want to find out what we need to do to get the short ones up to GA standard.

Therefore, I'm not necessarily looking for Bedle to make GA at this stage, but I do want some positive and constructive feedback about what we can do to expand these articles if necessary or, conversely, how to make them more concise. I'm afraid that, so far, I have encountered negative reviews. The first simply failed it on first glance because it is not "broad in coverage" (i.e., too short), though he did subsequently agree to review it properly and he came up with a few useful pointers. The second was a farce: he had no problem with the article's length but he immediately denounced the sources as "suspect", accusing them of making a "sensational" claim, and that was that. I'm afraid I got very annoyed with him because unless he can prove that a source is unreliable (per policy WP:RS) he is expected to assume good faith and his untenable assumption was a complete breach of good faith. By the way, the sources quoted are completely reliable; they are widely used throughout cricket literature and in many articles on this site.

So that's the background and as you can see it's a nightmare. If you decide you would rather not do it, that's no skin off my nose as I would completely understand. I'm very grateful to you for showing interest. But, I think that as you are new to the site, your "fresh pair of eyes" would see a lot of things that longer term members might miss or be complacent about.

I see from your contribs list that you are assessing Adolf Anderssen and I wish you luck with that. I've had a quick look at it just now and it seems an okay sort of article but you might need to improve some of the wording and grammar; also I noticed a few sentences that could perhaps need citations; and I would check that everything in the lead is covered in the main body of the article. I would like to see more about his private life although it does seem to have been very quiet and uneventful. Anyway, that's for you to decide. All the best. ---Jack | ^{talk page} 08:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ken, thanks very much for your offer. I'll just give the article another once-over and then nominate it in a few minutes. All the best. ---Jack | ^{talk page} 10:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Ken. I see we have hit problems and I absolutely refuse to get involved with site bureaucracy, something you will learn all about in due course. I've decided to withdraw the GA nomination because it is going to be a waste of my time and yours. I very much appreciate your interest and will certainly make use of your advice about Bowen's piece, which I should have used already. Regards. ---Jack | ^{talk page} 08:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, changed my mind, hence the strikethroough above. I'll go with it. I suggest you alter your submission to that page so that it looks like a reassessment input rather than a formal review. It's not your fault but it doesn't look right now that the powers that be have decided to shift not so much the goalposts as the arena itself. ---Jack | ^{talk page} 17:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll take a look. --KenKt (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reply from Dr Cash so I have taken matters into my own hands and reverted everything back to GAN. When you sign off your review, I will act as follows:

assumed fail – I will leave the article as B-class and will not nominate it for GA again unless it can be expanded because new source data has come to light

assumed pass – I will transfer the review to GAR myself (and do it right!) given that you have expressed a couple of concerns around GAC1b (albeit a minor point) and, as expected, GAC3a

Is that okay by you? ---Jack | ^{talk page} 07:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, KenKt, thanks for reviewing Adolf Anderssen. I've edited the artcile and responded at the review page. --Philcha (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, KenKt, a few more responses at the review page. --Philcha (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope you enjoyed the artcile. --Philcha (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm User:Dweller. I'd like to be in contact with you by email for an important message that I expect you'd prefer me to send to you more privately than on these pages that anyone can read.

Please visit my userpage and looks in the "toolbox" for the "email this user" link. Please click it, send me an email and I'll reply to you, although it might take me a couple of days, because I rarely use a computer at weekends.

If you are concerned by this request, please do check me out. I am a user in good standing, who's been here a good while, an administrator and bureaucrat. --Dweller (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]