Talk:Twitter/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am beginning a GA review of this article. Please feel free to leave any comments regarding the review below. Vicenarian (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Result = ON HOLD

ON HOLD This is an excellent article, well on its way to GA status. However, it still seems to be undergoing some evolution of a significant nature. Per the good article criteria, an article still undergoing constructive editing should be placed on hold to allow for further discussion and editing, in order to allow the creation of a "stable" version. I will allow two weeks for further editing and to see if the article achieves a measure of stability. If it does, and the other criteria are met, I will pass the article; if it does not, I will fail it and suggest that interested editors wait until a consensus is reached before renominating. Thank you. Vicenarian (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE As a hold really should only last seven days, I will return to my review on May 25 on or after 17:00 UTC. Please leave any comments regarding the review on this talk page. Thank you! Vicenarian (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review - Second Opinion Requested

I initially failed this article (see the talk page edit history), but as several folks pointed out, the biggest reason for my failure was caused by a bad edit (which blanked out the lead) that has since been reverted. The article is well-written, well-referenced and seems to meet most all the GA criteria. However, I am still very uncertain as to the level of "stability" that should be required for a GA. This article is still evolving. I'm requesting someone else chime in and help me decide here. Thank you for your patience and assistance. Vicenarian (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this on the WP:GAN page as needing a second opinion. I personally use Twitter, and think it is an awesome service.

Anyways, regardless, this is a very well written article, satisfying most of the GA criterion. Now for stability. I would say that this article is suffering from vandalism (which, so is every other article on Wikipedia), versus an edit war, which the Good Article Criteria says would cost it the Stability criterion. I would say, edit wars and content disputes, not vandalism, make instability. I think this article passes all the GA criterion, and should be listed.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 05:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review = PASS

Many thanks to User:Unionhawk for his second opinion. I concur. The article passes, and will be listed as a GA. Vicenarian ^{(U · T · C)} 18:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)