Talk:Murshidabad district/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 15:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Will give this one a look. —Ed!(talk) 15:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Fail
 * The lead of the article should more comprehensively summarize the article, and anything there should be expanded on further down. See WP:LEAD for more on this.
 * The Economy section is overly detailed and probably could be narrowed a bit, I recommend focusing concisely on some of the largest industries here and giving a more general overlook of them in the city, any companies worth mentioning and data on workforce.
 * The Culture section is off to a good start but could be expanded. What kinds of attractions are there? What major historic sites? Any data?
 * "Notable Personalities" section can probably be pared down substantially as it's not common to see this section very big.
 * "Educational Institutes" could be expanded and will likely need some detail on the major schools and what they offer, which can probably be brought in from those pages.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Fail
 * Extensive sourcing needed on History
 * Extensive sourcing needed on Geography
 * Extensive sourcing needed on Economy. I suspect this one can be pared down a bit as well because it's overly detailed.
 * Language section has no references.
 * Culture section has no references.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Not Yet
 * "Etymology" needs to be expanded, and I'd suggest taking note of the Joppenbergh Mountain featured article, which does a good job of this. The section also needs sources. Beginning of the 18th Century section could be added here.
 * "Prehistory" could be expanded to explain the early history. When were first settlements recorded? Can more be said of this ancient town located there? What happened politically?
 * The "Sub Division" section could be expanded pretty significantly if possible. How large are these administrative sections? Is there size, population or geography data?
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * The article as it is currently reads like a promotion or an advertisement. I would think a writer would need to focus a bit on the neutral language work here. Probably will need major restructuring so the final form would need its own review as it'll probably be very different.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Not seeing any problems on this end.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Some ideas for more images:
 * 1) *Any kind of a more detailed map on this region we can include?
 * 2) *Cultural sections could use some more information. What's going on with the nightlife? With major events? With sports?
 * 3) *Educational institutions could use some photos. How large a business is this in town.
 * 4) Other:
 * So based on the above criteria, I would say this article meets multiple WP:QFC issues, so I'm going to have to Fail the GA nomination and allow users to give this article a bit more work. Would be happy to see it come back as some of these were addressed in the future. Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 16:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)