Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review should be posted within the next day or two. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to place this article on hold to allow time for the below issues to be addressed. cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No responses in 2 weeks...are contributors still working on this, or should the review be closed to allow for a possible later renomination? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there's still work to be done, then this will have to be failed since there's been no progress in a couple weeks. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 14:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Recently appointed heads of government, namely British Prime Minister David Cameron and Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, made the G8 and G-20 summits their first diplomatic conferences" - source? Source for following sentence mentions both leaders but does not support this assertion
Working on it. --Tenmei (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2010
As it appeared to me, the GA review was put on hold pending completion of "general copy-edit for clarity and flow" as noted above; and I was waiting for some kind of confirmation that format consistency was satisfactory in the table which is in the Attendance section.
In 2011, if formatting in the table is deemed adequate, then I am willing to re-examine each cite in the other parts of the article, making edits where necessary. --Tenmei (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Italicize print-based sources like newspapers
?
Ref 11: fix formatting
?
Include a publisher for all sources, and name publishers consistently. For example, you include both "english.aljazeera.net" and "Al Jazeera"
An objection to the use of the word "family" is unjustified. The caption is consistent with conventional usage which is verified by reliable sources. --Tenmei (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are any problems with this article that would make it deserve a fail during a GAN. I'm hoping someone could reassess this article and see if there are still any problems with this article that prevent it from becoming a good article. EelamStyleZ (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The initial assessment process focused on aspects of the article which could be improved by further edits. Some work remains to be done.
In addition, I would hope to see comments which identify what is "good" as well as what is "bad".
Likely to be the first of the international summit articles to be classed as a good article.
Likely to become a kind of yardstick for measuring the evolution of other similar articles — not only G-20 summits, but also the 37 articles about G8 summits, articles about the NATO summits, etc.
In practical terms, the first GA review included a question about the term "family photo". IMO, this issue was resolved; and in other contexts, we may be able to avoid reinventing the wheel.
The article looks as if it deserves GA status. I see no problems with the content or the writing style. Therefore, I agree that it should deserve GA status. Johnny Au(talk/contributions) 03:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
