Talk:Twitter/GA3

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The article was originally reviewed and passed on May 25, 2009, following a brief review, but it's not clear that it was reviewed according to the six GA criteria. It underwent GA reassessment on September 1, 2009, which appears to be more detailed, but was ultimately passed with an WP:NPOV tag in one of its sections, which goes against criterion #4.

The current version has a 'multiple issues' tag at the top and another cleanup tag in one of the sections. The 'notable usage' section also seems to be getting a little out of hand, with lots of subsections that have been added, and I think some of this would be better handled in a much shorter section without going into so much gory details (it's too focused, which is an issue with criterion #3). The lead section also isn't providing a very good summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. And there's lots of citations in the lead as well, which suggests that new material is being introduced there.

The article is also currently protected (since 12/15/2009), and a look in the edit history suggests some reverting. The numerous edit requests on the talk page suggests that it the article was not protected, it would still be subject to a lot of vandalism. So this is an issue with criterion #5 (stability). WTF? (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all your points. In particular the 'notable usage' section is way too long. It should be condensed and perhaps a new article created with the rest of the content. Overall, the article needs a lot of work. I'm planning to do my part to slowing start improving the grammar, language and flow of the sections. DAG JM (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an old assessment. I am closing it since there doesn't seem to have been any follow-up in months. The article has changed quite a bit since this review was written (although I'm not saying that it's worse or better than before). In particular, I had moved the "Notable usages" section to its own article a few days after this review was created. Gary King (talk · scripts) 23:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)