Talk:India Trade Promotion Organisation/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) 16:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Contributor: Ola.saurabh (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added various maintenance tags to the article; and thats after just cursory reading.
 * Various sections are completely unsourced. Those should be verifiable with reliable sources.
 * All piped external links in the prose and infobox should be removed.
 * The article at present has about 33 reliable external references, ranging from Government websites to ITPO website to reputed newspapers and online portals.
 * I support the article as its subject do easily qualify for the notability and the particulars are certainly verifiable.
 * Still if you are not satisfied, that is even after 33 reliable sources, please tell about the parts of article that still needs source.
 * I could not understand what you mean by "piped external links in prose and infobox"?
 * Quantity of references used is immaterial. All information should be sourced. If that is not done, more refs are required. Hence the citation needed tags. We are not here to discuss notability of the topic; that would have happened if this was up for deletion. We are here to discuss quality of the article. That's what is done in GANs; you should know that when nominating articles. You would see that plenty of external links i.e. links to websites outside of Wikipedia are seen in the prose and infobox of the article. Those should be removed. Ping me once these things are done and then we can continue with the review. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:PRIMARY while using ITPO's website itself widely as source. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Earwig's tool notes possible copy violation with 47% confidence within references used. Please also resolve this severe issue.

Contributor: Ola.saurabh (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added references to ALL the areas highlighted by Dharmadhyaksha.
 * Note Done. One citation needed tag still present.


 * Please positively review the current version.
 * Please also take care of other points mentioned above. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * various references do not help in verifying the content for which they are used. Such dummy references should not be added. Further to that, you have been removing maintenance tags that I add like citation needed, failed verification, dead link, etc. without addressing the problem. This will not help the article and in addition such repetitive behavior might even get you blocked. Please take a serious note of this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

2nd opinion needed: The nominator shows lack of competence in understanding how WP works and unfortunately I have lack of patience in teaching our ways to seemingly SPAs. The nominator removes maintenance tags without addressing the issues and also barges on my talk page blaming me for not assuming good faith. Long story short; lets have other reviewer review this stuff. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Second opinion by
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It's been a month since Dharma voiced this review suggestions, still they remain unaddressed. This is a very long time for GAN to be on hold. I still find cn and Failed verification tags in the article. Apart from these I can see a lot of grammar and MOS issues. The order of sections also doesn't lie as per MOS:HEAD, MOS:Layout. There are many instances of irregular capitalization in the article. Finally, I suggest to request for a copy-edit from WP:GOCE before renominating. As the initial reviewer mentioned, 47.8% of copyvio confidence is a serious issue that needs immediate attention. For now, the article is not at least B-class. My opinion for this nomination is fail. I ping to finalize the review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 13:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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:
 * Failing the article. Much work needed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)