Talk:Pravda/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * ---Prose quality is not very good. I would recommend making a request for copy editing at the Guild of Copy Editors, but do so only after addressing other issues (as a last step before re-nominating the article for GA)
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * ---Many references in the article were not properly cited. I took care of a few of them myself, but more work needs to be done on the ones that I tagged. Please see WP:CITE for more information about how to properly cite sources
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * ---Many citations are still needed to verify the information presented. I've marked most of them with "citation needed" or "failed verification"
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * ---There are many important aspects of this topic that are not sufficiently covered. Please see comments below
 * 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * ---Well done here. The images nicely illustrate the text.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * ---This article still needs work to get it to GA quality. Please see further comments below. Once all the issues that I have noted have been addressed, you are welcome to re-nominate this article for GA. Happy editing! -- Tea with toast  (話)  17:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * ---Well done here. The images nicely illustrate the text.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * ---This article still needs work to get it to GA quality. Please see further comments below. Once all the issues that I have noted have been addressed, you are welcome to re-nominate this article for GA. Happy editing! -- Tea with toast  (話)  17:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ---This article still needs work to get it to GA quality. Please see further comments below. Once all the issues that I have noted have been addressed, you are welcome to re-nominate this article for GA. Happy editing! -- Tea with toast  (話)  17:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional comments for article improvement
The largest factor for the article not achieving GA status is that there are many important aspects to the topic that are not covered. The article does a very good job at outlining the history of the newspaper (it just needs some more references); however, the article should be about more than its history. Here is a list of my suggestions for sections that should be written and information that should be included.


 * Information about circulation. While the article states that it has a circulation of 100,000 -- where are these circulated to? Is it only in Russia, or is there distribution to other former Soviet states or in the US and elsewhere?


 * Related to this, the article briefly mentions an online English version. Is this a part of the same entity as the Russian online version? It would be great if you could include more information about these two.


 * There needs to be a section written on the content that is published in the newspaper. What kinds of sections are there (is it just local and international news, or are there sections for lifestyle (fashion, cooking, book reviews, etc.), are there editorial sections?


 * I think the article needs a section addressing fairness/bias of the paper. The paper received much criticism from Western media for not being impartial, and I doubt you would have trouble finding sources for that. You may wish to draw on the fact that the paper is owned by the CPRF and serves as its "organ".

Those are some ideas to get you started. Good luck and happy editing! -- Tea with toast  (話)  17:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC) -Thanks "Tea with Toast" for taking out precious time in reviewing this article. Yes I too believe that only history section has been covered in it. Though collecting history is an difficult part for an article, but the hard part is being done. I will try to implement your valuable suggestions. thanks. -Viplovecomm (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)