I'm curious as to the rejection reason for this edit. The reviewer subsequently made almost the same edit himself with the exception of the change to the title, which IMO was the critical part of the edit given the potential ambiguity of the original title ("when to use der/die/das") with respect to (grammatical) gender (see edit comment "Changing title to avoid confusion with "when to use der/die/das wrt. gender.)

Secondly, I'm interested in the denial by Community that happened at the same time, which gave the following rejection reason: "This edit did not correct critical issues with the post - view the revision history to see what should have been changed. Given that the reviewer's own edit was a subset of mine, it follows that it must have fixed the critical critical issues that the reviewer saw in the question.

Thanks in advance for the clarification!


1 Answer 1


I have reviewed your edit and did not find it useful/necessary to change the title. The question has been asked by a "beginner" regarding german language and I think it may be useful to have the questioned articles in the topic as this is more easy to find for beginners.

That said, I agreed with your minor changes in the text-part of the question.

Second is, I added the definite-articles tag. I also used the opportunity to correct the formal changes to improve the readability of the question. As said above, this was also proposed in your edit.

I think I could also have used the "approve and improve" option as well.

But since I would have reverted some of your changes (title change), this would somewhat be weird. I think the option should be used for further improvements, e.g. inserting something else, but not reverting/contradicting some of your changes.

I recognize you have made effort to improve the content here and that is great.

If I did something wrong I apologize.

  • Fair enough but rejecting for "did not address critical issues" was probably a bit confusing as I can't see that the post had any "critical" issues in the first place, i.e.it may not have needed an edit at all.
    – Takkat
    Jan 15, 2016 at 9:12
  • 1
    @Takkat i did not have the option to chose any reason for rejection, i just used the "reject and edit" option. As the question itself is quite old (4 years soon) and the "definite-articles" tag might not have been available that time, I found it necessary to add the tag. Tags are only useful if they are used. If you cannot find a question like the here affected when browsing questions with "definite-articles" tag, that is not purposeful in my opinion. Jan 15, 2016 at 9:17
  • 2
    Thanks for the explanation. And no need to apologize, I'm just trying to figure out how things work in this neck of the woods :)
    – ardila
    Jan 15, 2016 at 9:20
  • yeah it's the canned comments the author of an edit suggestions sees. Still, both edits were on a very old and IMO not so brilliant Q&A where the edits did not make much of an improvement. Typical case for too minor rejection IMO.
    – Takkat
    Jan 15, 2016 at 9:23
  • @Takkat i see and agree your point of view and will regard this in further reviews Jan 15, 2016 at 9:24
  • 1
    @aardila: the confusion may also come from minor edits you see from a few high rep users who regularly go on such an edit-spree. Nothing to be worried about :)
    – Takkat
    Jan 15, 2016 at 9:27
  • @Takkat ;) noted. I decided to edit the question, even though it was a bit old and not particularly noteworthy, as a result of reading the answer and realizing that the use of "der/die/das" instead of "definite article" could lead to confusion with relative pronouns, simply because the way the answer was phrased. Thought it might bee useful to improve it a bit for future re-use (call it a case of early optimization).
    – ardila
    Jan 15, 2016 at 9:37
  • 1
    @aardila: why not go ahead and add another great answer there? Go for Necromancer... :)
    – Takkat
    Jan 15, 2016 at 9:40
  • @christian.s btw, do we agree that the gramatical-case tag doesn't really belong? I just realized the question has almost 3K views, so it might actually be worth cleaning up a bit.
    – ardila
    Jan 15, 2016 at 15:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .