Talk:2010 G20 Toronto summit/GA1

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Tenmei in topic GA Review

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