Talk:Duladeo Temple/GA1

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

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 05:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I will give my initial comments soon. &mdash;  Yash! [talk] 05:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


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

I am afraid the article is far from GA status. &mdash;  Yash! [talk] 09:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The prose can seriously use some work. There are words such as "rough", "vibrant", "striking", and many more that should not be used. There are some simple grammatical errors and sometimes the language gets confusing. Words "vestibule" and "porch" are directly used from the source which I noticed after going through the first reference. I doubt how many more does the article have from those books. The lead should summarise the article and not introduce things which are not covered in the prose later; the article follows neither. I suggest you ask for a copy edit.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Like said above, I don't like the direct usage of words. Plus there is a dead link. One source is used for chunks of lines. Does one source cover it all? Also, one reference is used a lot. I am not against it. But different sources can be better. Also, some things are not cited thus cannot be verified.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Covers history and architecture. But it can use an 'etiology' section.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * this is one of my biggest concerns. It says "invaded by muslims". The way "Muslims" is used is not right and vague. And as I stated previously in 1, words like that should not be used.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wars.
 * 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):
 * There's a section "gallery" while the images can be presentd in the prose. Repetition of "Various sculptures depicting" can be avoided.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article needs some serious work before it can reach GA status. I would love to keep it open but I prefer rewriting it and implementing the changes so that it can be reviewed in a good shape. Sadly, I am failing it. &mdash;  Yash! [talk] 09:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)