Talk:In the Bazaars of Hyderabad/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 12:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I will be reviewing this. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize for this delay — I would have completed this review by tomorrow. — The Most Comfortable Chair 03:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ; Thanks and appreciate your support. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I have concerns about copyright violations and close paraphrasing, verification, and neutral point of view. I found the following outright copyright violations:
 * "The poem was written as a part of the Swadeshi Movement"
 * "Hyderabad of yore..." and "Hyderabad, its history...".

Now this would not make this a quick fail in itself, but I found close paraphrasing with source-to-text inconsistencies (in just the first section with two short paragraphs; I have not looked for close paraphrasing beyond that so I cannot be certain if there isn't more). What I found:
 * Article: "Bazaar vendors (i.e. the merchants, vendors, maidens, peddlers, goldsmiths, fruit-men, musicians, and flower girls)" — Source: "The picture of the thriving marketplace includes peddlers, goldsmiths, fruit-men, musicians, and flower-girls."
 * Article: "Indians decided to purchase domestic products and shun the British merchandise" — Source: "Indians decided to boycott European merchandise and use the Indian products instead." — There is a misrepresentation of the source as well, in that "British" is being used when the source says "European". Also, "that was shoved in the Indian Bazaars" is a charged statement — not neutral.

There were several claims that I was not able to verify from the sources cited. I am listing a few of them below:
 * "The city of Hyderabad had a mixed culture of the Hindu and Islam. The goods sold by the Bazaar vendors (i.e. the merchants, vendors, maidens, peddlers, goldsmiths, fruit-men, musicians, and flower girls) cater to the need of every segment and faith of the society." — References do not explicitly support the first sentence and the latter half of the second sentence.
 * "Through the poem, Naidu urges the countrymen to take part in the Swadeshi movement and boycott all foreign goods. She is reminding fellow Indians about the rich Indian traditions and calling them to procure locally made goods. Thus, Naidu tries to evoke the curiosity of Indians by presenting the scenes of a bazaar where traditional Indian products are merchandised for all forms of livelihood, affliction, and revelry." — I cannot see how the sources cited support these claims.
 * "The poem has been included in the syllabuses of ... the Indian Civil Services Examination and in some of the universities of Europe."
 * "Some schools in India organise a skit base..." — It is just one school, so cannot verify "some schools" part.
 * "Critical and scholarly praise has been unanimous in declaring "In the Bazaars of Hyderabad" one of the perfect poems of the English language in India, becoming one of Naidu's most popular poems that had brought her international acclamation." — Sources do not say any of that.

In the prose, several statements that do not adhere to neutral point of view:
 * "that was shoved in the Indian Bazaars"; "the magnificent things of life"; "The poet has used vibrant rhymes to describe the magnificence of the bazaars"; "the charm and enthusiasm of a traditional Indian bazaar"; "Naidu had enthusiastically described the Bazaar"; "Emotional moods are stirred by the poet when Naidu makes the readers feel that the bazaar life also witnesses both sorrows and joys".

Additionally, the article cites some websites that are essentially a copy of this Wikipedia article.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Per above, the article requires a thorough overhaul and that would be beyond the purview of a good article review. Unfortunately I will have to fail this. — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review, the issues you pointed out can be corrected with in couple of time, infact I already started doing so, I think failing it in so early stage of review is not so reasonable. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed the copyvios, as recommended above.
 * 2D ✅
 * All the citations are reliable, can you point-out which website is copy of WP. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the Wikipedia-mirror part — I am an idiot and I got confused with the copyvio report. However, about the close paraphrasing — we will have to comb through each and every source to ensure there are no other transgressions. Additionally, the article needs to be copyedited extensively because there is a lot of awkward and non-neutral phrasing; the former would warrant the article almost entirely re-written, in terms of phrasing (not content). A reasonable expectation of GA nominations is that these two points are already handled, and that onus is on the nominator before submitting it for a GA review. The article meets three points of QF: #1 (with GA criteria #1), #2 because of copyvios and close paraphrasing, #3 because of several issues with the prose ("It has, or needs, cleanup banners" — emphasis added). All that considered, I would suggest you go through the article thoroughly and look through the all sources for potential close paraphrasing (I did not go beyond my usual random spot checks). I would highly recommend getting inputs from the GOCE for the prose. — The Most Comfortable Chair</b> 12:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Per above, the article requires a thorough overhaul and that would be beyond the purview of a good article review. Unfortunately I will have to fail this. — <b style="color:#000000">The Most Comfortable</b> <b style="color:#8A2BE2">Chair</b> 05:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review, the issues you pointed out can be corrected with in couple of time, infact I already started doing so, I think failing it in so early stage of review is not so reasonable. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed the copyvios, as recommended above.
 * 2D ✅
 * All the citations are reliable, can you point-out which website is copy of WP. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the Wikipedia-mirror part — I am an idiot and I got confused with the copyvio report. However, about the close paraphrasing — we will have to comb through each and every source to ensure there are no other transgressions. Additionally, the article needs to be copyedited extensively because there is a lot of awkward and non-neutral phrasing; the former would warrant the article almost entirely re-written, in terms of phrasing (not content). A reasonable expectation of GA nominations is that these two points are already handled, and that onus is on the nominator before submitting it for a GA review. The article meets three points of QF: #1 (with GA criteria #1), #2 because of copyvios and close paraphrasing, #3 because of several issues with the prose ("It has, or needs, cleanup banners" — emphasis added). All that considered, I would suggest you go through the article thoroughly and look through the all sources for potential close paraphrasing (I did not go beyond my usual random spot checks). I would highly recommend getting inputs from the GOCE for the prose. — <b style="color:#000000">The Most Comfortable</b> <b style="color:#8A2BE2">Chair</b> 12:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All the citations are reliable, can you point-out which website is copy of WP. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the Wikipedia-mirror part — I am an idiot and I got confused with the copyvio report. However, about the close paraphrasing — we will have to comb through each and every source to ensure there are no other transgressions. Additionally, the article needs to be copyedited extensively because there is a lot of awkward and non-neutral phrasing; the former would warrant the article almost entirely re-written, in terms of phrasing (not content). A reasonable expectation of GA nominations is that these two points are already handled, and that onus is on the nominator before submitting it for a GA review. The article meets three points of QF: #1 (with GA criteria #1), #2 because of copyvios and close paraphrasing, #3 because of several issues with the prose ("It has, or needs, cleanup banners" — emphasis added). All that considered, I would suggest you go through the article thoroughly and look through the all sources for potential close paraphrasing (I did not go beyond my usual random spot checks). I would highly recommend getting inputs from the GOCE for the prose. — <b style="color:#000000">The Most Comfortable</b> <b style="color:#8A2BE2">Chair</b> 12:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)