Talk:Sir Creek/GA1

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

Hi. This is a well-written article but does not qualify yet for Good Article status for the following reasons:
 * The Tribune, Chandigarh, India, is an editorial page which does not qualify as a reliable source under Reliable sources.
 * It also appears that "Dialogue on Sir Creek begins" The Hindu does not qualify as a valid source either because the information also reads like an editorial, especially when the author endorses India's plan at the end.
 * There is not enough sourcing in general besides the invalid sources. The second half of the third paragraph and the whole fourth paragraph under "Dispute" are entirely devoid of citations. Under "Dispute resolution", the most important pieces of information, about India and Pakistan's responses to the dispute resolution is also completely missing citations.

I noticed on your nomination that all reliable sources have been used in the article. Unfortunately, a lack of sources does not enable reviewers to overlook the requirement that Good Articles be "factually accurate and verifiable". If you do choose to search for more sources, due to the controversial nature of the topic, I would highly recommend sourcing the information from outside third party sources (i.e. non-Indian, non-Pakistani sources) so as not to violate WP:NEUTRALITY. This article will fail for now. Please renominate when the concerns above have been addressed. Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)