Talk:DakshinaChitra/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 16:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Glad to review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Two major and one minor things here:
 * The images in the Features section should get a caption that points out that they show villages in the museum.
 * Generally, both the Features and the Facilities section read like promotion for the museum, with words like rich, not only interesting from the tourist angle, high end costumers and interesting gifts. The Facilities part in particular has a tone that is not acceptable for an encyclopedia.
 * Source wise, the article relies to heavily on the museum itself, and those links are all dead.

A lot to do here, even for such a small article. I am placing it on hold for seven days for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I am surprised that the museum web site is not working. I am trying to find alternative sources for the text in the next day or two. I have done some pruning in the sections mentioned above. The image captions have been suitable changed by another user. -- Nvvchar . 11:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made the necessary changes of references and text to comply with your review observations. I have retined only one reference of the Museum Admn as it gives factual information not found in any other book or web reference. Hope the changes are adequate. Will be glad to comply with any more suggestions. Nvvchar . 23:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Several issues still present with the article. Now that several information was taken out due to not meeting NPOV standarts, the article is a little thin on content, especially concerning reception of the museum. Also, not all of the objectionable tone was removed, such as the sentence The heritage homes are informative and educative as one can learn the art and craft traditions of South India.. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have edited to address the issues mentioned. Do you want me to add text "concerning reception of the museum." Nvvchar . 01:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be helpful to bring the scope of the article up to GA level. Also, there are still issues with non-NPOV text. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On my request Rosiestep has edited the article for NPOV and I have added a section on appreciation. Pl see. Nvvchar . 13:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This article has come quite a way since it was nominated. Thank you for the changes! I've made two minor ones myself and will pass it now. Congrats! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for promoting the article to GA status. Can you kindly consider leaving a message on our talk pages Pthree of us) of the GA approval as the auto bot does not work on our talk pages. Nvvchar . 16:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Whoa. I wasn't in town for just five days and this has become a good article. That's just brilliant work! Thanks a lot to all of you who aided in promoting it.