Talk:Chartered Institute of Public Relations/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 00:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Review
Okay. I will do this review and provide a deep commentary about the writing style and techniques of the article.
 * Is this review going to be finished? Wizardman  17:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. I will finish it soon. — ΛΧΣ  21™  20:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been over two weeks since the nominator responded, and three weeks since Wizardman asked the above question. It's time to finish this review. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything was addressed that the reviewer noted long ago, so I'm just going to close this. Wizardman  04:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope not positively, without checking the remaining sections. The "Controversy" section, in particular, is both vague and contains substandard prose. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding: having taken a look at all three sections that Hahc21 has not addressed below, I see prose problems with all of them, and places where I think coverage is not up to GA standards. I think the review needs to be reopened, so that Hahc21 can complete it. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will continue this. I apologize (again) for the mess this has created. It's not that I can't be bothered (which I understand, as I have been active on other parts of the pedia) but for other reasons. I will finished my scan and ask the nom to address them. — ΛΧΣ  21  04:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Prose comments

 * Lead


 * History


 * Services


 * Advocacy


 * Controversy

Final comments

 * Okay. I am now satisfied with the quality of the article. There are still some minor things to polish, but I will take care of them on the talk and directly with Corporate. This is the first time I review an article about this topic and I may overlook some things, but after searching for a while on the internet I consider that no major point is missing. As this has been opened for a long time now, I'm passing the article. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21  21:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wohoo!! Thanks so much! CorporateM (Talk) 21:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)