Jump to content

Talk:2010 G20 Toronto summit/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review should be posted within the next day or two. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to place this article on hold to allow time for the below issues to be addressed. cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No responses in 2 weeks...are contributors still working on this, or should the review be closed to allow for a possible later renomination? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there's still work to be done, then this will have to be failed since there's been no progress in a couple weeks. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and formatting

[edit]



Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?





Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?








Accuracy and verifiability

[edit]


Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?







Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?




Presumed to have been resolved in GA1 review?

Broad

[edit]

Neutrality

[edit]



Stability

[edit]


Images

[edit]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:2010 G20 Toronto summit/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I don't think there are any problems with this article that would make it deserve a fail during a GAN. I'm hoping someone could reassess this article and see if there are still any problems with this article that prevent it from becoming a good article. EelamStyleZ (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The initial assessment process focused on aspects of the article which could be improved by further edits. Some work remains to be done.

In addition, I would hope to see comments which identify what is "good" as well as what is "bad".

  • Likely to be the first of the international summit articles to be classed as a good article.
  • Likely to become a kind of yardstick for measuring the evolution of other similar articles — not only G-20 summits, but also the 37 articles about G8 summits, articles about the NATO summits, etc.
In practical terms, the first GA review included a question about the term "family photo". IMO, this issue was resolved; and in other contexts, we may be able to avoid reinventing the wheel.

I would expect this GA assessment process could become a kind of template for expediting the assessment of other summit-related articles like 2010 G-20 Toronto summit preparations and 2010 G-20 Toronto summit protests. --Tenmei (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks as if it deserves GA status. I see no problems with the content or the writing style. Therefore, I agree that it should deserve GA status. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]