In #1, the query asked was -

what are the points you feel need improving and what is the best way to resolve them?

to which there was one reply only of Debastein. Thanks, Deba.

Since we cannot wait longer and need to go ahead with the class, let us begin. First of all, we must understand the purpose of this query - to exercise your understanding of the issues involved, to make you assess their importance, prioritise and list them. Various sources for input in preparing this query were given.

A simple understanding of the issues involved is given below.

Firstly, before we submit the page for GA Nomination once again, we have to satisfy ourselves not only regarding the Good Article Criteria (listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria ), but also to understand the key defects indicated by User:TonyTheTiger during his GA review. The GA criteriamay be postponed to the point after all the major identified defects are rectified, which include:

* Article too large - needs reduction/thinning.
* Lead defective, needs rewriting.
* Referencing required.
* Specific issues at Disambiguation report & deadlinks
* Infobox clarification.

The FA review being of 2009 vintage is of less relevance now except the following which could still be live issues:
* Image review required to identify & remove images under fair use criteria.
* Structure needs tweaking.
* Referencing needs completion & cleanup.

Hence the GA process will undergo three steps:
* Step one - Address the identified concerns.
* Step two - Review the amended work with GA criteria and rectify them.
* Step three - Address the points of the reviewing GA editor during the GA process..

Based on the above, Step one actions should probably comprise the following in sequence:
* Structure needs tweaking. 
* Article too large - needs reduction/thinning.
* Lead defective, needs rewriting.
* Referencing required for those facts without it & {{cn}} templates.