Talk:Delayed-choice quantum eraser/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 05:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing. But this is likely to be a quick fail unless the "this section requires expansion" tag is dealt with, either by expanding the section or by determining that the tag is inappropriate. Also the title of the primary reference is listed incorrectly. How carefully did you check this before nominating? It is a bit troubling that the nominator has never edited the article in question and (per his self-description on his user page) does not seem to have the physics expertise needed to edit the technical parts of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. I must have misunderstood nomination. I just saw that it seemed significantly better than before. Is it usually supposed to be editors that nominate? TheKing44 (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be, but the process usually involves some back-and-forth, editing to fix the problems that the review turns up, so you have to be willing and able to edit the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do.TheKing44 (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing, so I'm closing this for now as a quick fail. If you have time to address the cleanup tags and make a proper copyediting pass on the article, you can always nominate it again. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]