Talk:Occupy Wall Street/GA1

Controversy
This is definitely not good article material. Not only is there still major debate in the discussion page about significant changes but there has yet to be any serious contributions with controversies in them. The OWS movement is very controversial,gallop polling shows that less than 25% of the population agree with the movement, yet there are little to no serious controversies outlined in this article and I believe this is due to censorship of material by a select few editors(One of them actually admitted to reverting edits because it would "hurt the movement"). The article was largely written by people in support of the movement and that shows in the article. Some people in discussion page admitted to adding feigned controversy just to make "Glen and Limbaugh look bad". There is a tiny criticism section although the media has largely reported things like trash on the streets, multiple rapes, defecation, violence,the keeping of people from their homes and jobs, and the injuring of many civilians that had nothing to do with the movement. Editors have tried to include these things in the article many times and each time have been reverted with with illegitimate reasons.--Jacksoncw (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Jackson, you cannot review this article. Per WP:GAN, "you cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review." Let someone else pick up the review. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

GAN quick fail
This article quick fails as a GA nomination because of its instability. Renominate when the article is stable, no edit warring is happening, and when the article is close to meeting the other GA criteria. AstroCog (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)