Talk:2008 attacks on Uttar Pradeshi and Bihari migrants in Maharashtra/GA2

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will review this article Canadakid2 (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess User:Canadakid2 has quit WP. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 12:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Review
Hello. I will be doing the GA review for this article. Here are some initial suggestions: That's just the superficial stuff for now. I'll get into the text more once these are completed. The editors of this article will be given seven days to make this first set of changes. Nikki 311  21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize all the main points of the article in no more than four paragraphs. It is a technicality, but there should really only be four.
 * Under the February section, almost every paragraph begins with "On (date)". Try and mix it up a bit for a more interesting read.
 * The same issue in March–May, almost every sentence begins with "On (date)".
 * Per MOS:QUOTE, only quotes that are longer than four lines or are more than one paragraph should be blocked off. All shorter quotes can just be in the text. This suggestion is mainly in reference to "Political analysis" and beyond. There are several short quotes blocked off that would be better as part of the text.
 * People should be referred to by their last names in the text. Raj Thackeray, for example, is referred to as Raj throughout the article.
 * Make sure the references are in numerical order within the text. For example: [79][77][76] --> [76][77][79]


 * Hi Nikki! Thanks for reviewing.

--KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 12:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The LEAD has been made into 4 paras.
 * Raj Thackeray has been referred to as Raj as the article repeatedly mentions 3 Thackerays—Raj Thackeray, Uddhav Thackeray and Bal Thackeray.
 * Refs have been ordered.
 * The quotes shorter than 4 lines have been un-blocked.
 * However I am finding it very difficult to solve the "On (date)" issue. My prose-skills are very poor. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 12:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I got your message. I'll look everything over later today when I have a bit more time. Nikki 311  17:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Prose seems to be the only problem left. It isn't quite up to GA standards yet. One option is to try a peer review or get someone from the WP:League of Copyeditors to look it over. It really helps to have as many outside eyes on an article as possible. You can't have a peer review and GAN simultaneously, but I think it is okay to request help from the LoC while a GAN is still open. You could also request assistance at WP:India, WP:HR, and WP:DISCR (all of which have tagged the talk page). While you do that, I'll do some minor copyediting, and see where we end up. Nikki 311  02:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've done some copyediting, and it wasn't as much as I initially anticipated. I think the prose is good enough for GA, but if you are planning for FA...I would definitely get some more people to look over it (it wouldn't hurt, anyway). One last thing...I don't think the timeline is altogether necessary, especially with the article already exceeding the general size guidelines by quite a lot. That is up to you, though. Long story short: I'm passing the article as I believe it meets all the GA criteria, so my other suggestions are basically for if you want to pursue FA or A class. Nikki  311  00:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)