Talk:2011 Irish presidential election/GA2

GA Review 2
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 11:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this. --Noleander (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Tick list
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Discussion

 * IP, I see there was a prior GA review at Talk:Irish presidential election, 2011/GA1, in Dec 2011, and it failed. Can you tell me what specific changes were made to the article since then to bring it up to GA status?  --Noleander (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, it looks like you also nominated the article the first time; yet in that first GA, you did not respond to questions posted by the GA reviewer. What was the issue there?  --Noleander (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to fail this. The article may meet GA criteria, but the nominator has an obligation to participate in the review process. --Noleander (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The small number of issues raised look to have been addressed so I guess this should be renominated. --86.40.207.160 (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)