Talk:1967 Madras State Legislative Assembly election/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this historical article is quite good and informative, and very closely meets the six good article criteria:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I had to make a few minor copyedits to the grammar, which understandably was probably written by a non-native speaker of English. For the most part, they are pretty minor. I do have one question regarding the use of the word "contested". I found this (and modified it) in the campaigning section, but the word is also used in the results section. The issue here is that usually, when you're describing the candidates or participants in the election, they are "nominated" and "run". When someone "contests" an election, that means that they believe that there were problems with how the election is run so they "contest the results" (analogous to "challenge"). So the use of this word may or may not be used correctly in the results section. Please check this.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Information in the article is backed up by reasonable citations that appear to meet WP:RS guidelines.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The individual sections look like they cover the topic well. I cannot think of anything that is missing that should be there.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * It appears to be written neutrally with no WP:NPOV violations.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Most of the recent editing was done by Sodabottle and CarTick, and I don't see any edit-warring or WP:3RR violations.
 * 1) 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):
 * The images used are tagged and captioned appropriately. This image (File:Mgrshotat.jpg) is tagged as being copyrighted, though the copyright holder has approved its use for any purpose. The issue that I see here is that it is unclear on the image description page who the copyright holder is.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Barring a few minor issues, I think the article is very close to meeting the GA criteria and can be listed pending minor revisions. I will leave this article on hold until 3/2/2010 so that the issues may be addressed. Cheers! WTF? (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * I see Spiff has placed an Indian English Tag for the article :-). In India, the term "Contest" is used for participation in the elections in general. See the Official Election Commission FAQ . The Representation of People Act of 1951, the legislation which governs elections in India (and written in English as well) uses the term. Since spiff has placed an Indian English Tag on the article, is this ok now?. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying the "contested" issue. I see that the term is commonly used in India. It might actually be a good idea to add a footnote on this clarifying, since non-Indian readers may not be familiar with this terminology. The footnote could use the tag formatting, and just have a simple sentence explaining that the word "contesting" or "contested" is used to describe candidates in an election in India. Maybe even have a link to the eci.nic.in page you cite above? Thanks! WTF? (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I have added the footnote, with a link to the Election commission FAQ.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed the picture till the identity of the copyright holder can be established beyond doubt.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The article now meets the good article criteria and can be listed. Nice work! WTF? (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. -- Car Tick  01:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)