Talk:Dadhichi/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. First impressions make me think this nomination is premature. Many claims remain uncited, and bullet points are used so summarise information that really needs expanding and to be written as prose paragraphs. I am also concerned that so few sources are used for such an important person. I will add tags to some claims to show the sort of sentences that need citing (but i wont be exhaustive on this).

I will give more comments tomorrow, but i doubt this can be brought up to GA level in a typical hold period. Some good work has clearly been done, but more is needed.[

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose could be tightened and copy-edited for flow. Bullet pointed lists need expanding into prose.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Few sources are used and are not the nest quality. There are numerous book sources for this person, so reliance on web-sites should be avoided. At least one source is an unsuitable blog, and another seems to be a site for a modern guru, with no indication why it sould be considered a good source for this topic, rather than an opinion. Some claims and sections are still completely inreferenced. I do believe that no orginal reasearch has been inserted, but without good sources, this is difficult to be certain of.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article needs more viewpoints (per criteria 3), but the information included seems to be factually presented without bias.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article does not meet multipleGA criteria. I consider there to be too much improvment necessary to pass in a reasonable hold time, particularly as no work has been done since my initial comments and tagging. I therefore fail it at this time. Good luck improving the article[User:Yobmod|Yob]]Mod 23:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)