Talk:Natural resources of India/GA2

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

Reviewer: Ssriram mt (talk · contribs) 23:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

GA comments
I had a detailed look at the article and also the preceding failed GA. I feel the nomination is effected before incorporating comments from the previous review. There are lot of single sentences, a couple of sections without any reference (fishing and forestry) and quite some missing details (like quantity/quality produced) across sections. The prose is also not consistent across different sections of the article. Given the importance of the article and the amount of detail that is needed, I suggest going with a peer review before further nomination. Also referencing can be serialized - page numbers, access date and other prime parameters are missing, which would make it difficult to verify.


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) The map of India shown is a disputed map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.210.79.192 (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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) The map of India shown is a disputed map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.210.79.192 (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail: