Talk:A. P. J. Abdul Kalam/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ankit Maity (talk · contribs) 12:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) *Biography needs Persondata
 * 2) *The lead should adequately summarize the content of the article. (Lead contains nothing about Future: 2020 and all)
 * 3) *Wikilinks should only be made if they are relevant to the context. Common words do not need wikilinking.
 * 4) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comment
Sorry for delayed reply. Thanks Ankit for coming up and reviewing the nomination. Will you mind if you can let me know what are the necessary fixes I should work on the article? I believe that your review wasn't a detailed one and can be worked on after fixing few problems. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't it written under the |GA Review section (Point 1)? -- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 15:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the issues raised in Point 1 (and the peer reviewer), I have a few more suggestions:
 * Have worked upon the provided link, on whatever I could. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 14:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * cn tags should be addressed or removed as appropriate
 * -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes this a reliable source?
 * Removed it, adding new reliable sourced. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 13:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Some general copyediting needed for grammar
 * . Ssriram mt (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Issues with non-neutral/unencyclopedic tone - for example, "he had a discipline of starting the day at 4:00 am following the footsteps of his father"
 * Removed it. Ssriram mt (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Criticisms need more citations
 * More citations and also topic on mercy plea included.Ssriram mt (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a bit overemphasis on frisking? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconded Nikkimaria.-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 16:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Three incidents of national importance,so think needs to be retained - reworded some portions. Ssriram mt (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My on-off Wiki status is probably delaying stuff's. Working on all these issues in a slow track. Thanks! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Other potions of importance like interaction with students, visiting prof, integrated missile program have been expanded.
 * Add "popular culture" to the lead.-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 12:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ssriram mt (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Carried out a second round of copy-edit, removed dubious references and streamlined some sections. Ssriram mt (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Add "Controversies" to lead. Change ",and" to "and".-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 06:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good spot on the and, - have changed and also added the controversies part in the lead.