Talk:Vancouver/GA3

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

Reviewer: Elephantsandbacon (talk · contribs) 12:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Elephantsandbacon, thanks for reviewing. Is it possible to get more specific notes here? Question mark symbols kinda don't give editors much to work with.  The Interior  (Talk) 23:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, those are sections in which I haven't reviewed yet. Hope this helps. elphantsandbacon   Care to talk? 10:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't realize you were still working on it. The Interior  (Talk) 18:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that there are numerous citation needed tags which need to be addressed before this can pass.  TB randley  18:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to relist this if the reviewer does not return to complete the review soon. Mkdw talk 08:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion - The citation needed tags indicate that this article is clearly not ready to be a GA. Just fail the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's at least two editors (Mkdw and myself) willing to dive in on improvements if we can get some specific notes on work that needs to be done. I'll start on some of the CN tags today.  The Interior  (Talk) 15:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm only seeing one remaining CN tag, for this paragraph: Though polarized, a political consensus has emerged in Vancouver around a number of issues. Protection of urban parks, a focus on the development of rapid transit as opposed to a freeway system, a harm reduction approach to illegal drug use, and a general concern about community-based development are examples of policies that have come to have broad support across the political spectrum in Vancouver.[citation needed] This is a broad statement, as such a bit of a sourcing challenge, but I'll work on it.  The Interior  (Talk) 15:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I count four citation needed tags (found quickly using CTRL+F). The one I checked the date on had been there since December. This suggests to me that the article wasn't closely checked before nomination, and I'd also suggest just failing it for now so that any fixes for these won't be a rush job. I'm glad to see there are editors working to improve this one, though, and I hope it'll be renominated soon! Thanks to everybody for their efforts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The original reviewer, elephantsandbacon, has not edited on Wikipedia since April 4 (after making the second opinion request). With four significant "citation needed" tags still on the article, it's clearly not ready. There has been no action on the article to address these tags, despite their having been pointed out weeks ago and again 10 and 9 days ago, so I'm failing it per the prior second opinion recommendations. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)