Talk:Three Gorges Dam/GA1
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Tpbradbury in topic September 2009
GA Reassessment edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA article with the most cleanup tags: dead external links from December 2008, needing clarification from June 2009, unsourced statements from March, May, July and August 2008. Tom B (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Shall we just remove unsourced statements? Dead links I can deal with, that's no problem.Calvingao (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Most of them are cleaned up.I would like to improve it and keep it as a good article.Calvingao (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- It is best to try and source statements unless they look as though have been made up and won't have sources. Also we don't use contractions - i.e. don't, couldn't, they're - in formal English unless it's part of a quotation. I would go back and compare to the version promoted to GA in early 2008 to check nothing valuable has been deleted or changed incorrectly since then. There seemed to be consensus for a merge but given no one did this and it's now over a year later, i wouldn't feel obliged to do it, you could simply remove tag and see if people still have the same opinion in which case they can help you. i don't mind if someone else closes this reassessment once most of the issues have been resolved, though i recommend you get someone to check the article if i'm not available, try Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment. Tom B (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
September 2009 edit
I've gone through and done a major cleanup of the article. Frankly there was a lot of pidgin English and style problems, but I think it's a lot better now. Is it going to be nominated as a good article? Because it seems good to me (a couple of missing citations notwithstanding). -Jordgette (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- the article is already listed as a good article, the purpose of this reassessment is to resolve problems with the article in order to maintain it as a good article. thanks for cleanup. As you indicate it has missing citations, 4, it also has a deadlink and a [vague] statement about what the bridge carries i.e. it still needs cleanup. It has been almost 4 weeks since the reassessment was initiated, progress has been made but if the remaining problems aren't fixed then it will have to be delisted, if anyone gets a chance to cleanup that would be good Tom B (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)