Talk:Julia Gillard/GA1: Difference between revisions
Inkheart0123 (talk | contribs) ←Created page with '==GA Review== {{Good article tools}} {{subst:GAN/subst|{{subst:Julia Gillard}}}} {{subst:I am the reviewer|1=~~~~}} I think it is beside the point that the page is...' |
Inkheart0123 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
'''Reviewer:''' [[User:Inkheart0123|Inkheart0123]] ([[User talk:Inkheart0123|talk]]) 12:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
'''Reviewer:''' [[User:Inkheart0123|Inkheart0123]] ([[User talk:Inkheart0123|talk]]) 12:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
I think it is beside the point that the page is constantly changing it is a good article and follows the criteria very well. It should be accepted as a Good Article |
I think it is beside the point that the page is constantly changing it is a good article and follows the criteria very well. It should be accepted as a Good Article |
||
Regarding the GA nomination just put up, the fact that the page isn't up to standard is besides the point. IMHO I don't think it's worth the time and energy to attempt to make a GA article on a subject that is constantly prone to change, and subsequent article edits. GAs/FAs tend to be better for historical things that tend to be constant and don't change. My 2c. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 14:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:24, 10 August 2011
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
[[{{subst:Julia Gillard}}|Article]] ([[Special:Edit/{{subst:Julia Gillard}}|edit]] | [{{fullurl:{{subst:Julia Gillard}}|veaction=edit}} visual edit] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{subst:Julia Gillard}}|history]]) · [[Talk:{{subst:Julia Gillard}}|Article talk]] ([[Special:Edit/Talk:{{subst:Julia Gillard}}|edit]] | [[Special:PageHistory/Talk:{{subst:Julia Gillard}}|history]]) · [{{fullurl:{{subst:Julia Gillard}}|action=watch}} Watch]
Reviewer: Inkheart0123 (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC) I think it is beside the point that the page is constantly changing it is a good article and follows the criteria very well. It should be accepted as a Good Article
Regarding the GA nomination just put up, the fact that the page isn't up to standard is besides the point. IMHO I don't think it's worth the time and energy to attempt to make a GA article on a subject that is constantly prone to change, and subsequent article edits. GAs/FAs tend to be better for historical things that tend to be constant and don't change. My 2c. Timeshift (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)