Talk:10th National Congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are numerous prose issues; nothing major, but they exist nonetheless. For instance "The preparations for the 10th Congress was led by the Personnel Appointments subcommittee of the 9th Central Committee, which was, in all likelihood..." illustrates multiple issues; "was" should be "were", and the "which was, in all likelihood" would read better as "was probably". Another prose issue that jumps out as I read the text is "This was a radical change; this was the first time competing..." which is a little repetitive.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section could do with some further work; for instance, it does not link to either Vietnam or to the Communist Party of Vietnam. For that reason I am unclear that it complies entirely with the manual of style guidelines.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There is a minor POV issue here with "the nomination list recommended by Personnel Appointments subcommittee was improved..." (the latter word is innately POV; not everyone would agree that it was an improvement).
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	We could use images such as this (File:Nong Duc Manh 2010.jpg), so why don't we ?
	7. Overall assessment.	In general, this is a fine piece of work, and the editor(s) responsible deserve to be congratulated. No offence is intended by my decision to reassess it within 6 months of it achieving GA status, but there are clearly a few issues that require attention. Once these are fixed, I would be happy to see it retain its status; if they are not then I fear that it might require demotion. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Right, this is now a pass. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Done --TIAYN (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)