Talk:Institutional seats of the European Union/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA?[edit]

Anyone got any new ideas on this? Things we could expand upon? Otherwise I was wondering about putting it up for GA to see how good it rates and if they can poke any holes in it. - J Logan t: 21:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small note to the GA reviewer who is currently reviewing this article. As I put this forward, I would deal with anything you bring up. However I will be on an unavoidable wikibreak from tomorrow (28th) till New Year. If it can't wait till then I'm sure there is someone at WP:EU who can help and User:RCS is involved a lot in this page. Thanks for your work.- J Logan t: 09:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I won't be able to review until the second. I look forward to working on this article in the new year. Best regards, Rt. 12:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I've been made slightly busy in the past few days and unfortunately it continues. I won't be able to review this article after all. Apologies for inconvenience. Best regards, Rt. 18:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA failed[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    English is not my native language, so I'm not the right guy to rate the use of this language.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    major aspects: The article shows in detail the discussions and decisions about the places of the European parliament and the European commission. There are two sentences about the courts and the decisions to install and to keep them in Luxembourg. Everything else is pressed into four sentences. Don't misunderstand me. It's ok, to have much more informations about the ongoing quarrel about the European parliament than for excample the European Central Bank, but the decision to choose Frankfurt for the seat of the bank did not happen without the usual problems too. How about the participation of "border regions" as the mediterranian countrys, Scandinavia or the eastern countries?
    focused: There's another problem/the other side of the problem, I was not sure, where to place. First I thought it to be a matter of style (1b), but now I will deal with it as a matter of focus, because it does not seem to be a problem of form, but of the valuation of the topic. While everything else is mentioned in half sentences, the location of the European commission is shown in the part history, together with the European Parliament. Then, there comes a big third chapter, "European Parliament" again. The regulation about the European Parliament is expensive and is complecated, but the problem is solved (in a typical European way). There is to much focus on this topic, if every poll about it is shown, while there's nothing mentioned about the population's thoughts about the other locations. Again, please don't misunderstand me. I think, it's interresting and necessary to show the problems of the location of the European parliament, but this is not the only topic. The single places and institutions can all be handled in a historic development or they can be handled by institution or place, but they should be handled in a common form, although there should be differences in length, depending on the importance and the controversy of the location of the single institutions. In it's current state, this is an article about the location of the European parliament.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    As far as I know, JLogan is an experienced and hard working editor. That's why, instead of choosing fail, I put the article on hold, to give the opportunity to discuss this and to improve the article.
    No improvement, therefore fail.
Shoot! I was away and didn't catch it when I got back. I'll get onto this soon, but to respond to your points: there is emphasis on the Parliament because it is a political issue, none of the others are. Further more the Parliament section deals with the current political issue while the history deals with the history of everything.
Likewise, I have no information on Frankfurt beyond that mentioned in the article regarding Luxembourg. Also, as far as I know there is no competition with other regions as these were decided in the six member era - there is however information about the agencies in other countries.
Thanks for the review though. (and please sign your posts Thw1309) - J Logan t: 18:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Institutional_seats_of_the_European_Union/GA1&oldid=1142168307"