Talk:Deshastha Brahmin/GA3

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

I am forced to instantly fail this article. This article does not cite references for many sensitive claims. I have personally added template for quiet a few of them. Further the references for which template has been used are totally unverifiable, questionable, inaccurate, fake and misleading. Over 95% of the notes section needs to be replaced with verifiable references. I sincerely believe that the article lacks a neutral point of view. Since the article lacks behind in verifiability and neutrality and since it cannot be coped up in the near future, I am forced to quick fail the article. The 2nd and 4th criteria of a Good Article as given in Good article criteria are not satisfied.

Please do not renominate before these sensitive issues are resolved! I surely believe that it will take at least some 6 months more for these issues to be resolved. Reviewer:  R.Sivanesh ✆ 19:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

SivaneshR - Your GA edit asking for citations was undone by another user and the reason is provided in the edit summary. Can you please provide specific references which are "totally unverifiable, questionable, inaccurate, fake and misleading." Also what parts of the article are non-compliant with NPOV (criterion 4 of GA criteria)? As stated in Jonathansammy's edit summary, the citations for the so called "sensitive claims" are provided in the main body of the article since these are routine non-controversial facts. Also what rationale do you apply when saying that this will take 6 months to fix? It appears that you have a total of 534 contributions to Wikipedia in article space whereas most of the contributors to this article have thousands. Have you assumed that everybody contributes to Wikipedia at the same rate? Given that the article was peer reviewed twice ( & ) with the purpose of proceeding for a GA review and then reviewed by veteran GA editors (but not listed for entirely other reasons ), all of which have been addressed, I will ask that you re-read the article in its entirety and re-consider your assessment. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all I regret for your hurting replies. Wikipedia is not a place to show your attitude. I got a little confused with the templates. I will pass the article now but I request that you add a little more detail to  templates so that people understand it better. Even without that change the article surely covers all the good article criteria. Congrates to all the major contributors for their hard work to make this article a GA. R.Sivanesh  ✆ 09:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * sivaneshR - You have misunderstood my earlier reply. It was made in a matter-of-fact and dispassionate way with no intent to hurt anyone. You also misunderstand the reason for bringing up the number of edits - it was brought up to simply bring forward the fact that some editors can accomplish in a week what others can in 6 months. If there are more collaborators working on an article then that time is reduced even further. No problem about the confusion with the template. I'm glad to know that you now know and acknowledge that there are no ""totally unverifiable, questionable, inaccurate, fake and misleading" sources in this article. Can I request you to please strike out your first two sentences about hurting replies and attitude. You can do it like this. Wikipedia needs contributors like you who can contribute to India related articles. Please add the WP:India talk page to your watch-list as it is a central notice board for India articles where a lot of interesting topics are brought up. Again, sorry for any misunderstanding and good luck with the editing. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank You Zuggernaut! R.Sivanesh ✆ 16:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)