Jump to content

Talk:Julia Gillard/GA1: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
cmt
Line 2: Line 2:


'''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.




Regarding the GA nomination just put up, the fact that the page isn't up to standard is beside 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)
Regarding the GA nomination just put up, the fact that the page isn't up to standard is beside 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)
: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. - unsigned.
::The issue is that every week the article will be disputed as still being GA material. [[User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] ([[User talk:Timeshift9|talk]]) 05:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:53, 11 August 2011

GA Review

Reviewer: Inkheart0123 (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the GA nomination just put up, the fact that the page isn't up to standard is beside 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)[reply]

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. - unsigned.
The issue is that every week the article will be disputed as still being GA material. Timeshift (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]