Talk:Bharat Ratna/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs) 14:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Yes, the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) It complies with the manual of style guidelines for layout, and words to watch. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) It contains a list of all references presented in accordance with the layout style guideline, there are no dead links either. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) There are no opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) It contains no original research. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) It covers the history, awardees, controversy and criticism. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Yes, it is focused. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The tone is neutral. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Stable. No ongoing edit war or content dispute. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Yes, the images are tagged with their copyright status. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Yes, images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Pass Pass

Result[edit]

Result Notes
Pass Pass Its a good article!

Discussion[edit]

I have started the review. It does not have any cleanup banners and does not contain any seemingly copyright infringements, I will continue with the six good article criteria. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 14:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vivvt: Sorry to keep you waiting. Can you cleanup "|archiveurl= requires |url= " for reference 3,4, and 19? --AmritasyaPutraT 04:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please check. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivvt: I am having second thoughts about "Broad in its coverage" criteria. Like the explanatory note e should be in the body of the article? Will provide more comments over this week, thank you! --AmritasyaPutraT 05:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think 'nominatees' should be 'nominees'?
Done.
  • I see that some more images can be easily added to the article in the table showing the list of recepients, like [[File:Dr_Dhondo_Keshav_Karve.jpg]]. Are you planning to add them? --AmritasyaPutraT 14:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AmritasyaPutra: Thank you very much for the review. I appreciate your time. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bharat_Ratna/GA1&oldid=1136561850"