Talk:Tourism in Nunavut

	Tourism in Nunavut was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 12, 2011 Good article nominee Listed September 20, 2023 Good article reassessment Delisted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 3, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that iceberg watching is a popular attraction among tourists in Nunavut?
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Nunavut Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian Territories. Travel and Tourism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tourism in Nunavut/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

1. All the requirements for GA are met here, but this article could be considerably expanded in the run-up to FA. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]