Talk:2002/GA1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 23:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: GoldRomean (talk · contribs) 01:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I think I'll take this. Review to come in a week or two, if that's a problem let me know and I'll nom this for deletion so someone else can pick it up :). Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hey GoldRomean, I'm in no rush whatsoever, but it's been three weeks now so I just wanted to check in. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Really sorry about this - expect comments in the coming days, and feel free to remind me more if I forget again :). GoldRomean (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, wondering if you had access to Britannica Book of the Year 2003? GoldRomean (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- If so, could you email, say, pages 221, 1, and 506? Otherwise, no worries and I'll check a few more online ones :). GoldRomean (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, @Thebiguglyalien, most of review is done! Sorry again for the delays. GoldRomean (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- GoldRomean I've made all of the suggested changes. I notice most of them are typographical issues rather than good article criteria, although these are important to correct as well. I can email you page 221 of Britannica Book of the Year, but pages 1 and 506 of this source are not used in the article. I could email you different page numbers, or pages from other sources. You might also be able to access some of them through Internet Archive with WP:IAACCESS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Good point, thanks for the reminder (in future reviews I'll probably do the small stuff myself now). Silly me, yeah if you have those pages from the Annual Register that would be great, otherwise how about 352 and 228? Thanks! GoldRomean (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Passing. Awesome work; this was a really great quality article with very little problems :). GoldRomean (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Good point, thanks for the reminder (in future reviews I'll probably do the small stuff myself now). Silly me, yeah if you have those pages from the Annual Register that would be great, otherwise how about 352 and 228? Thanks! GoldRomean (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- GoldRomean I've made all of the suggested changes. I notice most of them are typographical issues rather than good article criteria, although these are important to correct as well. I can email you page 221 of Britannica Book of the Year, but pages 1 and 506 of this source are not used in the article. I could email you different page numbers, or pages from other sources. You might also be able to access some of them through Internet Archive with WP:IAACCESS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
General comments
Criteria
Good Article review progress box
|
Prose review
- Internal conflicts: "seven conflicts ended in 2001" - do you mean in 2002?
- Changed to "had ended", the conflicts ending in 2001 is why there were fewer conflicts in 2002.
- Link a hostage crisis instead of hostage crisis.
- Done.
- Art and architecture: "The architecture world focused on the rebuilding of the World Trade Center" - I find it kind of hard to believe that the entire architecture world's main focus was that on that, could you rephrase (or send source)?
- Changed to "was a major focus"
- Popular media: "country music and hip-hop music" → "country and hip-hop music"
- Done.
- I think it could be mentioned that The Eminem Show was the best-selling album in 2002, as said in lead (right now, it's just "Globally, the best-selling albums in 2002 were The Eminem Show by Eminem, Let Go by Avril Lavigne, and the Elvis Presley greatest hits album ELV1S: 30 #1 Hits."). If you know the highest-grossing film, I think that could be mentioned in the lead as well.
- Done and done.
- Sports: Worth mentioning the 2002 Winter Paralympics?
- I figure that would be better covered at 2002 in sports since it's not a top-level sporting event.
- Economy: Weary about the phrase "correcting from", are there better alternatives?
- Changed to "recovering from", open to other wordings.
- Link "information technology" and "telecommunications"?
- Done.
- Environment and weather: "in Australia" → "in Australia"
- Done.
- "western United States" → "the Western United States".
- Done.
- "The Kitulo National Park" → "Kitulo National Park".
- Done.
- Link El Niño?
- Done.
- Health "ebola" should be capitalized.
- Done.
- Politics and law: "leaving it unable to fulfill its usual role of seeking action against alleged cases of systemic human rights violations around the world" - not sure if this is WP:NPOV.
- Removed.
- Possibly link warlords.
- Done.
- "A wave of social pension reform took place in European nations, with Finland... and Switzerland all in various phases of implementation." - Not sure about the use of the word "in", which suggests present tense, maybe "having been in"?
- Changed to past tense.
- "Similar reforms took place in Japan and Singapore." → "Similar reforms also occured in Japan and Singapore."
- Done.
- Religion - "most prominently by Muslim attack" → "most prominently by a Muslim attack" - also, the article said the cause was disputed, so I would hesitate about calling it a "Muslim attack".
- Changed to "an attack".
- Link to Godhra train burning, probably from "a Muslim attack on a Hindu train car".
- Done.
Source review
- [13]

- [21]

- [28]

- [34]
- Not sure it's specifically said that "Typhoon Rusa was the deadliest typhoon in 2002", just that it was the deadliest in South Korea.
- Fixed.
- [38]

- [49]

- [89]
- Source states 18 were killed, the Wikipeia article states 17, citing this - looks like it's 18.
- Changed to 18.
- [137]

- [9]:1

- [9]:506

- [8]:221

- [8]:352

- [8]:228

Other criteria
- Images checked, all good - mostly Public Domain, CC BY-SA 3.0, CC BY 4.0, etc. Criteria 3-6 good too. Earwig doesn't want to work but as main source is offline it probably won't be much use anyway :).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.