Talk:First Banerjee ministry/GA1

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 18:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nominator: Avenue X at Cicero

There are many good things about this article. The prose is well written, it's well illustrated, etc. But there are three main problems.

On of the main problems with the article is that it does not follow our Manual of Style in its organization. For instance, according to Manual of Style/Lead section, a proper lede should summarize all sections of the body of the article, without introducing any new information that is not in the article elsewhere. This lede doesn't do that. According to Manual of Style/Embedded lists, the article should convert lists to prose wherever possible, often separating out lists into their own articles. So in this case, the sections from the Indian Constitution should be summarized and rephrased into text, with sources to the actual wording. Consider separating out the long list of members into its own article, as United States Senate is a separate article from List of current United States Senators. Also, the duplication of information in "Cabinet Ministers" and "Ministers of State" is non-standard.

As to criterion 3b, the article contains very little about the history of the council. There is ample info about the present make-up, but too little about the council before 2011 elections. The section on "Government and politics" is very good, but it is too little information for such an important topic. Again, see the difference between United States Senate and List of current United States Senators for comparison.

The third problem is with the sourcing. The material that's currently in the lede (which should really be in other sections, so that the lede can be a summary) is not sourced at all. The sourcing for the list is spotty, with some items sourced explicitly and others not. In the "Government and Politics" section, sourcing begins near the end of the first paragraph, with most of that paragraph's material unsourced.

Even though the article is not ready for "Good Article" status at this time, I see that you have done quite a lot of work on the article, from its creation up to its present state. I hope that you'll continue to improve this and other articles. If these issues are all addressed, feel free to renominate the article for GA status at a later time. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)