Talk:Patna/GA1

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

Reviewer: DiplomatTesterMan (talk · contribs) 04:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I will be taking up this review. I will shortly provide a preliminary review. DTM (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am starting the review from the infobox:


 * Infobox
 * The montage is ok. However images used such as the Stupa of Buddha Smriti Park, which is quite dark, could be replaced with much better images which are already available at Buddha Smriti Park. Even if the darkness of the photograph is purposely part of the photo, it doesn't help people who are seeing the stupa for the first time. Also, to make it easier to edit the montage, why not use Template:Multiple image or Template:Photo montage? I won't specify which images should be used as that is an editorial decision.
 * Area label: The reference used does not say that the "City Area" is 250. It says: "the city would be spread over 1,167 sq. km against the existing 250 sq km. Over 600 sq. km area has been marked as urban area" ref. Accordingly the sub-labels can be updated. Further, the reference currently used is about the master plan still in the process of being approved. Ideally a reference of the approved master plan would be better, such as 1. This document "PATNA MASTER PLAN 2031" provides detailed figures.
 * Language label: The reference used is missing a page number. Further, the reference provides official language for the state of Bihar and not Patna. Are we to assume that the official state languages becomes the official languages of cities within the state?
 * The reference used for the Regional language label requires subscription. The citation should mention this.
 * The reference used for the Literacy states literacy as 82.73 % while the article currently has 83.37%.
 * The sex ratio also differs from the reference used.

I will pause here for your comments. After the infobox has been addressed, I will start the review of other sections. The intro/lede will be reviewed simultaneously and then again right at the end. DTM (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The nominator has not been able to find time to work on this first set of review comments. Further the nominator has agreed on the closure. While I have not completed the entire review as per the response, the article isn't far from a GA tag. I will have to fail this for now. DTM (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)