Talk:Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport/GA1

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

Reviewer: Berrely (talk · contribs) 18:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * It is well written and can be read easily. The article provides factual information while staying on topic and not giving useless or overly detailed information that the reader would neither need nor understand. There are no major grammatical errors except for the fact that British and American spellings are often alternated between, this is an issue that should be addressed. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), meter (A) (British: metre), metre (B) (American: meter), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), any more (B) (American: anymore), programme (B) (American: program). Fixed 11:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Almost no problems, but there are some issues that should be addressed.
 * Per Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 50 metres, use 50 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 50&amp;nbsp;metres.
 * Per Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb. Fixed 11:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * There are a few citations that have unfilled title parameters, but everything else is fine. Fixed 11:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Everything seems to be cited. There are some sentences that go for a while before citations, but the sources usually back up the whole sentence
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * As said above, practically all lines and sentences seem to be cited. Some paragraphs, such as this one, might do better with one or two more citations, but they are still fine.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Running it through earwig shows only one result, where a sentence says similar facts to the airport's about page, but as it is simply mentioning facts this is almost definitely a coincidence and is not a copyvio.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * The article has almost everything a reader would need to know about the airport, and does not go out of scope.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * One of the hardest parts of writing an article is staying on topic, and this article has done it well. It provides plenty of information, yet it stays on topic and makes sure not to provide information the reader would not find useful.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * There doesn't seem to be any bias, and all claims are backed up the reputable sources.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No current edit wars.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All images seem to have correct licenses and FAR have been filled in properly
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The images could have some more descriptive captions and should have some form of alt text. Instead of Outside view of the airport, perhaps change it to Outside view of [TERMINAL] in [YEAR], etc.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pretty good article, but some minor issues should be addressed if it is to be promoted to GA status. Passed, congratulations!