Talk:Paro Taktsang/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting review. 14:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
This article is quite readable and is well referenced. However:
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC) - Reference 1, "Paro Taktsang", is taken from a wiki-site: RangjungYesheWiki, and is therefore not a valid citation.
 * Reference 7, "Caves of Wonder located at 10,200 feet are Legendary Buddhist Caves called The Tigers Nest", is a blog site, ZuZu Top. I'm happy to accept the pictures purport to show the site before and after a fire; but they can't be regarded as a reliable source for any other facts.
 * I've replaced this with my own book source. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Geography -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC) - This section has a couple of {Citation needed} flags that need to be addressed.
 * Thank you for the first set of reviews. I will attend to them soon.--Nvvchar (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference 1 replaced. Refrences to fact tags in Geography section fixed. However, finding alternate references to Reference 7 is a bit time consuming as it is referenced at five places. Hopefully, will do it in day ot two.--Nvvchar (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There is no great rush, I'll just put the review On Hold for a while. Pyrotec (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The problematic reference has now been fixed. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 18:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Some more references have been added. All issues raised have been fully addressed now. --Nvvchar (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing yet another GA. Pyrotec (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)