Talk:2008 California Proposition 8/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

To be designated as a Good Article, an article must be stable (see #5 on the criteria list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria). This article is not yet stable, with constantly evolving content, and would undergo even more content change were it not semi-protected. This designation seems quite premature. BlueDigDog (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BlueDigDog (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this opinion, as someone who has not edited the article but has experience with article assessment. I'm watching this article as it goes through daily changes. Although I commend the editors for adding to this article in an admirable show of community and compromise, there is no way to know if the article is comprehensive since the events are ongoing and the impact has yet to be assessed. --Moni3 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the opinions of these two reviews agree, I will fail the article based on the article's instability at this time. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd beg to differ, since there have only been 24 edits this entire day (16 of November); one for each hour. That hardly counts as unstable. But since this has already been resolved - I'll just take the time to re-revise the article and ship it to GAN again. --haha169 (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just by looking at the leed paragraph one can see it is not a complete story. The current leed reads like a news bulletin, not like an encyclopedic article. Therefore it should not be submitted as a GA until a long, long time down the pike. Yours, 03:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC) added by User:GeorgeLouis
 * 24 edits in a single day.......is unstable. That does not mean it is wrong to edit so many times in a day....but, since this is a current event it does not qualify as stable untill after it stops having information added and changed daily. There are simply to many problems with this article. Too much POV (I took much of it out) incorrect information, images that were used that had no part in the prose and images that were in the wrong sections...as well as section headers that were in the wrong place. (also fixed) Mainly the problem with this article to qualify for GA candidacy would be....outcome. We simply do not know if this amendment will stand. Once all legal challenges have made their way through the courts, the article will be more stable. One way or another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.35 (talk) 10:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had an article pass FAC with over 50 edits a day on average. --haha169 (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WOW. What article is that? Peace.Wikibojopayne (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * SSBB --haha169 (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just by the way, our edits per day are down substantially now. I think maybe after the final results are announced in ten days, and the "current events" label is removed from that section, we could perhaps give it another go.--Bhuck (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * After the results come out, could the court case (were they all consolidated?) be started as a separate article, thereby "stabilizing" the Prop. 8 article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBell (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)