Talk:Joseph Baptista/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Due to my concerns about sourcing and completeness, I have not done a complete check of the prose. When I see work on the sourcing proceeding, I will complete the prose check.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I have some serious concerns about the referencing of this article:
 * First, what makes ref #2 (East Indian Community) reliable? It is used multiple times, but I cannot find publisher or fact checking information on its website.
 * Second, why are only websites and newspaper articles cited, when there are at least two biographies of Baptista (already mentioned in the article, no less) to draw upon? This is not to mention the multiple other books that mention Baptista and have sections on his work and life, which can be turned up on a simple Google books search.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Why mention nothing on the books that Baptista authored and co-authored? I turned up two in a cursory search, and there are quite possibly others.  This seems like leaving a somewhat important part of his life out...
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I have some serious concerns about the referencing and completeness of this article, detailed above. Although I am not going to fail the article outright, it needs some work before it is of GA status. I have this review page watchlisted, so please feel free to ask questions or post discussion here.  I can also be reached on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I have some serious concerns about the referencing and completeness of this article, detailed above. Although I am not going to fail the article outright, it needs some work before it is of GA status. I have this review page watchlisted, so please feel free to ask questions or post discussion here.  I can also be reached on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I'll try and fix these issue. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  18:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Due to the lack of response (except for the brief comment above) and the almost complete lack of work on the article in the week that this article has been on hold, I am going to fail this article's GA nomination. Please feel free to address the above concerns and renominate the article for GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's ok. I had nominated it almost two months ago when I had the time for intensive research. :( =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)