Wikipedia:Peer review/Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/archive1

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article is currently a Good Article, but I'm very concerned about the article's stability, the controversy of the topic, and the article's balance. I intend to have the article's GA status reviewed, but I don't want to notify too many editors. Therefore, I am requesting the peer review here instead of GA reassessment. As for me, I was uninvolved in the content, but involving in the titling. You can make suggestions to relevant editors who did hard work to have the article promoted to GA. I am abstaining from this discussion, but this should not affect the peer review.

Thanks, George Ho (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request appears to be as unspecific, almost to the point of incoherence, as the requester's remarks on the Talk page[1]. Given that s/he "was uninvolved in the content" but only "in the titling", why this vague mention of being "very concerned about the article's stability"? It may be worth some "peer review", but the Talk page would be the place to make comment on the title, if any further comment were needed. Who would be eligible to participate if the request were accepted? Qexigator (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article about the bill that creates huge impact is not an easy league for me. Look at citations and amount of writing. I just focus on fiction mainly and low-profile people, while you research the current bill, which is not easy to research and summarize. George Ho (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The statement "I intend to have the article's GA status reviewed, but I don't want to notify too many editors" suggests a private agenda, and is completely out of order. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but this does not seem to a be a valid PR request. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: I was hoping for your comments about the article, not the whole request. I want your opinion about this article; that's all. George Ho (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]