Talk:Pushkar Lake/GA1

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is mostly complete with respect to meeting the requirements of GA. Still needed a decent copyedit to clean up some minor areas of poor grammar (mostly done). The article could also use a minor reorganization to make it more focused. Below is how it measures up against the six good article criteria:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * ✅ After copyedit, I think the article mostly meets this criteria. Please see the remaining 'dubious' tag regarding a run-on sentence that I wasn't sure how to reorganize.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * ✅ Please see the 'citation needed' tag regarding the population figure for Pushkar city.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Covers most of the major aspects that I would expect it to discuss. I would recommend reorganizing some of the sections to make it more focused and easier to read. First, move the hydrology (climate) section into the geography section, since these are all related. I'd put the flora & fauna section immediately after geography, since that is also somewhat related (though keep it as its own section -- readers should be able to jump conveniently from a description of geography into a description of the wildlife surrounding the lake). History, religious significance, and cultural attractions are also somewhat related, so after flora & fauna, I would put those three sections. A general description of the history should come first, followed by religion, and then culture. The status & conservation section can come last.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article appears to be written in a neutral tone, conforming to WP:NPOV requirements.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article appears to be stable; no major edit-warring or WP:3RR violations.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Most images are tagged and captioned appropriately. There are a few issues. First, File:Pushkar Lake.jpg (infobox) is tagged under the GFDL but has no description or source information. There's also a category warning box in the image's description as well. Secondly, sections should not begin with an image -- the panoramic image under 'Status and conservation issues' should be moved to the bottom of the section.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Once the above issues are resolved, the article can be listed at WP:GA. I will leave it on hold until March 7, 2010, so that the issues may be resolved. WTF? (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the precise review. Even before I could read your message on my Talk page and attend to issues raised, User:Mephiston999 had already carried out the needed changes. I hope they meet your acceptance. I have made some minor edits only but changed the img in the infobox with another image to which no issues are tagged. I have shifted the Climate subsection before 'Hydrology' as it forms the input for Hydrology studies. I have also changed a repeat word. I hope with these changes the article would meet GA acceptance from you. If therre are any more issues, I will be happy to addres them. I must mention that your review is also knowledge enhancement to me on many aspects. Thanks once again.--Nvvchar (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick fixes! The article now meets all six good article criteria and can be listed at WP:GA. Also, the new infobox image is much better than the other one -- very nice shot! Almost makes me want to visit! Cheers! WTF? (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)