Talk:2010 G20 Toronto summit/GA2

GA Reassessment
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)


 * 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 &mdash; 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)
 * 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)