Talk:Kathmandu/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 23:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article and should have my full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to fail this article's nomination for GA status. As it stands, this article has quite a few issues that prevent it from being of GA status. Here are some thoughts: The referencing is currently the biggest issue holding the article back from promotion to GA status, although the weighting issues are also a concern. I have not done an in-depth check of prose, reference reliability or images, due to the number of issues I found on a quick sweep. Articles on large, historic cities are often difficult, and I would suggest that the main author(s) take some time to work through the article with an eye towards proper balance, good referencing and solid prose. After that has been done, I look forward to seeing the article back at WP:GAN. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Referencing is currently the biggest issue.
 * There are quite a few places missing references. Some sections are completely or mostly unreferenced - for example: Modern era, Police, Durbar Square, Festivals, Religion, Sports, Healthcare, In popular culture.
 * There are two citation needed tags.
 * There are six dead links in the references, which can be found listed here. One of them is already tagged.
 * Web references should include a title, publisher and access date at the very least. Authors, publication dates, etc. should be given where applicable.
 * The history section needs to be reworked and expanded. In the last two subsections (Medieval history and Modern era) there is only one date mentioned, and this is a reference to an entire century. This leaves the reader in the dark, not knowing what dates the medieval and modern eras covered. There is a lot of reference to "this era", without defining what the eras are. Also, there should be a few more specific dates to give the reader more reference points.
 * I think some of the weighting of the sections is putting undue weight on some aspects of the city. For example, the Architecture and cityscape section is over three times bigger than the history section, and the Culture subsection on Museums alone is bigger than the entire Demographics section.
 * The prose needs quite a bit of work. There is quite a bit of poor grammar and the punctuation is spotty.
 * There are two disambiguation needed tags.
 * Standardize spellings per WP:ENGVAR. I see neighbor and neighbour, organize and organise, recognize and recognise - these are just examples.


 * Who nominated this? Its way off at the moment!! I'm annoyed that they nominated it without telling me as this has now failed when I wanted to ensure it passed first time. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was nominated by a relatively new editor named User:Bineetojha. I'm sorry you weren't able to get a GA on the first try - I know how frustrating that can be... (I had a new editor once FAC nominate one of the articles I was working on - far before it was ready...the article now permanently has a failed FAC tag on the page, despite the fact that it passed with flying colors once I actually got around to nominating it myself.) Dana boomer (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah its irritating, especially when somebody does that at FAC. The article needs a lot of work. The history needs restoring and then condensing properly and then it needs sourcing properly and a final copyedit. I haven't got around to it yet!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you'd like some more input once you get to that point, just give me a ping. Good luck! Dana boomer (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Dana, this article does need corrections! I'll go along with your recommendations, and work best from my part to make it perfect. Till we are done with these issues, I'd recommend this page to be semi-protected, so to minimize vandalism and poor editing. Kathmandu is a popular destination, therefore it attracts numerous irrelevant edits, from many unconfirmed users. Let me know your feedback on this issue?

Thanks Salman 11:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsujata (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Salman. At this point, I see no need for semi-protection. Semi-protection is generally used when there is extensive, day-to-day obvious vandalism by IPs - from a quick look at the article history, this does not seem to be the case. Since this review is now closed, I would suggest working on the talk page of the article with experienced contributors such as Dr. Blofeld to improve the article. Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)