Talk:Padma Bhushan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 18:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Lead
 * Does Padma Bhushan have an English translation? I assume the words mean something. Consider adding something similar to the opening line of Bharat Ratna.
 * " announced on Republic Day" see note below about specifying date.
 * Done
 * I'm not sure the list of "most recent" recipients is needed in the lead. Their names aren't located anywhere else in the article, and that language leaves itself open to becoming outdated.
 * Removed
 * History
 * "...in its history;[4] for the first..." I think this would work better as two sentences - "...history. The first time was..."
 * Done
 * Regulations
 * See note under 2D for a minor plagiarism concern.
 * "announced every year on Republic Day of India" The article should specify the date as January 26. Not all readers will know that offhand.
 * Done
 * Specifications
 * "Riband" should be linked - it's not a common spelling.
 * Linked the first occurance
 * Refusals and controversies
 * Did Sisir Bhaduri say why he refused his award? His article only mentions that he received it.
 * Added reason
 * "Dattopant Thengadi rejected the award until [others] are not offered the Bharat Ratna" This seems confusing - He turned it down until it's not offered to two other individuals? Should this say until they are' offered an award? Dattopant's page only mentions the award in the infobox with no additional detail.
 * Done
 * "S. R. Sankaran also turned..." The word also isn't needed here - it makes it sound like someone else refused it that year.
 * Done
 * Playback singer should be linked.
 * Done
 * "...Karanth who was awarded in 1968 returned ..." There should be a comma after Karanth and 1968
 * Done
 * "Chatwal was pled guilty" - was isn't needed. Sant Singh Chatwal doesn't mention any criminal charges or guilty plea. "witness tampering during the United States presidential election" The election year should be specified and the link should point directly to the specific election, not the generic election page.
 * Done
 * "each of the awardee... " awardee should be plural
 * Done
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * no issues
 * 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:
 * no concerns
 * 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:
 * no concerns
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * no concerns
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig results were mostly attributed quotes or common phrases. Minor issue in the lead and regulation sections - "distinguished service of a high order" is in quotes, but the next phrase (without distinction of race, occupation, position, or sex) also comes from the same source verbatim from a separate location. An ellipsis should be added after "order" and the "without distinction..." should be included as part of the quote. Note that the source does NOT include the oxford comma before the word or.
 * Done
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Under history, the article mentions the date of creation, but says nothing about why it was created. Was there a unifying theme among the 23 first-year recipients, or had there been a call for the award leading up to its creation? Was it discussed in media or government prior to the press release from the (unnamed) secretary to the (unnamed) President of India?
 * Also in history, the award was suspended by the new PM for being "worthless and politicized." Was this accurate? Disputed?
 * The government gazette only inform about its creation and does not mention any specific reason including demand. The same goes for revoke. The awards are not given with theme followed in a given year. In both the cases, as it was in pre-internet era no online sources are available. We could have this info in the books or press releases but unfortunately those are not available online as this point of time.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * At the end, it's a little heavy on Sant Singh Chatwal - this article has more information on him than his own. Considering the content though, I think that's a failure of his article, not a digression for this one.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * The information presented is on balance. I'm unfamiliar with the topic, so I'm assuming nothing controversial was omitted.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No significant changes since nomination. No history of vandalism.
 * 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:
 * no concern
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Image needs WP:ALTTEXT
 * Done


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass

Argento Surfer (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Notes are complete. Pass/fail pending improvements by or other editors. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Updated status. Still some pending items under Refusals and controversies and 3A. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging to see if this is still being worked on. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have addressed your concerns. Please let me know if you need any further changes. - Vivvt ( Talk ) 18:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. I'm still curious about the English translation of the award name, but it's not vital for GA status. Nice work. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)