Talk:Swaminarayan Akshardham (Delhi)/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Comments

 * 1A. The bolding was done by some IP address today. It wasn't there before today.
 * Glad you fixed it.


 * 1B. I'm slightly confused. You said that 300o tons needs to be changed to 3000 tons?  The dates have been changed.
 * You need to add a certain type of dash between the date. I have done this myself.


 * 2A. Changed to reflist format, what is peculir with the refs ?
 * The format you had previously been using showed double numbers in the reference list. The new format looks better, and is also more convenient. Jor  dan  Contribs  14:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 2B. Most of the sources are reliable and those that can be contoversial have a backup. Also many of the sources are from the actual Akshardham website which is a 1st resource.  Again contoversial things have been backed with another ref.  What else is needed?
 * I have fixed one of the references in line 85. Jor  dan  Contribs  14:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cquotes! Cquotes should not be used per some part of MoS, though I don't feel like searching through that jungle to find the specific part. :) Instead, quote should be used, but only for quotations that are longer than 4 lines long...integrate the others into the text. Cheers! &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  19:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it alright now?    Juthani1    tcs 22:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Beautiful. :) &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  22:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Intothewoods29's GA Review
Sorry it's taken me so long to get to this. I'm really swamped with work (which I really should be doing right now) but oh well...

I liked the article, but I'm going to put it on hold for a couple of fixable problems. I'm assuming you're aiming for Featured Article, so I addressed a lot of the concerns that FAC reviewers will have. :)


 * Prose & Content


 * In Boat Ride, the last sentence needs rewording to show that people pass models of the first university, etc.
 * Done    Juthani1    tcs 22:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also in Boat Ride, what kind of message for India is it? Also, is that relevant/NPOV?
 * It's not POV, there are models showing what India may be like in the future. A message for India's future     Juthani1    tcs 22:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In Musical Fountain, the wikilink to well needs fixing (it leads to a disambig page)
 * Fixed link    Juthani1    tcs 22:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also in that section, what is a yagna kund?
 * I linked it so that those who want to know can click on the link    Juthani1    tcs 22:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do some features of the building have their own sections while others are in the Other features section?
 * The ones in the other section aren't exhibitions (at least the main ones). They are "other features".    Juthani1    tcs 22:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, couldn't the Garden of India and the Yogi Hraday Kamal be incorporated into one Landscaping section or something?
 * It's technically not landscaping because there are statues and things tha you can read. Not only plants     Juthani1    tcs 22:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentence on Premvati Ahargruh needs work: you have a complete sentence and then "India and an Ayurvedic bazaar" added onto the end.
 * It was confusing, so I fixed it    Juthani1    tcs 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is The Akshardham Centre for Applied Research in Social Harmony (AARSH) Centre really relevant to the article?
 * Yes, the other features includes things within the complex. The article is about the entire complex    Juthani1    tcs 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you wikilink "BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha" in the History section?
 * Done    Juthani1    tcs 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pramukh Swami Maharaj isn't Yogiji Maharaj's predecessor because he came after Maharaj (in the first paragraph of History)
 * He is. Did you read it correctly     Juthani1    tcs 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you wikilink Ghaziabad, Gurgaon, and Faridabad in the first para of History?
 * Done    Juthani1    tcs 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In Disputes, who claims that the three temples are larger?
 * The next sentence says the trustees of these temples    Juthani1    tcs 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Disputes section is a jumble of unconnected facts. Is there a better way to make it flow?
 * Who built Akshardham Gandhinagar? Why was it built? How is it relevant to this article?
 * I fixed it up. BAPS built it as well (it is the sister complex) It is important because many of the architectural styles from the Akshardham in Gandhinagar were used when constructing the Akshardham in Delhi     Juthani1    tcs 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In Ref #1, it says what Akshardham meanss. Is that important to the article?
 * No it isn't, because the article Akshardham (Philosophy) explains that    Juthani1    tcs 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dates (8 November 2005) need instead of spaces surrounding the month (i.e. 8 November 2005 )
 * I'm slightly confused, could you do it?    Juthani1    tcs 22:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Pictures


 * The Pictures in Monument and Opening Ceremony might not have the appropriate tags. I left a message at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, so I'll get back to you about that.
 * UPDATE: User:Protonk is going to guide you through the steps to get OTRS permission for those two images. Go here as soon as possible. I would but I really have to go do work. Cheers.


 * Does the picture of the dome show the ceiling of the Hall of Values? If not, the pic could be moved somewhere else.
 * Just FYI, pictures need to be staggered right-left-right-left per Accessibility, except when they're immediately under a level 2 section heading (like in History and Development). I fixed the pics, so that's shouldn't be an issue.


 * I tried getting a hold of User:Protonk but got no reply    Juthani1    tcs 00:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * References


 * You need to use a Cite web template for current refs 1, 8, & 46.
 * Done    Juthani1    tcs 21:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that Delhi Tourism Online (current ref 4) isn't reliable because it's a for-profit company. Same thing for current refs 6, 8, 15, 17, 27, 28, 38, 42, & 45. I'm going to ask about that, so I'll get back to you about that. Also, I'm not sure that About.com (#36) is reliable, so I'll ask about that too.
 * Ask me about the reliability. They seem reliable to me.  They are profit companies but they are more like travel brouchers     Juthani1    tcs 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Current ref 10 is definitely not reliable because it is a wiki.
 * I'm not exactly sure which one you are talking about. When I added more refs and removed others, the other refs were moved around     Juthani1    tcs 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Current ref 12 is also not reliable because it is a blog.
 * removed ref    Juthani1    tcs 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Explore Delhi (#20) doesn't have an About Us section, and because of that isn't reliable.
 * removed ref    Juthani1    tcs 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what current ref #29 is. There's no company information.
 * I added publisher and publishing date    Juthani1    tcs 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Current ref #43 is from MSN and needs to say so.
 * done    Juthani1    tcs 21:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You have many paragraphs cited by only one citation at the end. Try adding/finding more citations.
 * Also, some paragraphs have two citations at the end of the paragraph. The citations should be immediately after the sentence it supports, if that's possible.

Like I said, good work. It's almost to GA status, so good luck. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed what I could. Tell me if there is any other citation fixing.  I tried adding more sources but Akshardham is still a new monument and there are only a few pieces of literature that have info on Akshardham.  Thanks for all of your effort again on the review.     Juthani1    tcs 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I would like to show one problem. This article seems slightly messy. I know looks aren't everything, and I haven't bothered reading the article, but why should I if I felt like the article was messy? An article being formatted nicely can improve readability, i.e. I don't want to read an article if it looks like a bunch of words thrown on the page. You have really big headings for the exhibitions, but not much in them. Put more in, or make the headings smaller. Also, try to put something other than text, like a picture, on the left-hand side of the page, it would help break up the "Lots of random pics on the right, and a bunch of short paragraphs on the left" feel. Either that, or make the paragraphs bigger. When I come to a page, I want to think "Hey, this looks like a nice, well formatted page. I would feel comfortable reading it." instead of "Ahh, all these pictures in such a small amount of space make me feel cramped. I'm moving on." Okay, I'm making it sound worse than it is, and I definitely don't know that much about design, so take others' advice above mine, but it could use a little reformatting.G man yo (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A Second Look
Okay sorry about the wait. The prose all looks good, congrats. :)

Some citation things that still need to be fixed:


 * Current refs 2, 39, and 50 are from BAPS. That needs to be pointed out in the citation.
 * Ref 2 has been corrected, it was the same as ref number 1 and was changed for some reason as its own ref    Juthani1    tcs 21:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ref 39, now ref 38 because of the above event, states that the publisher is the Swaminarayan Aksharpith which is a specific part of or division of BAPS    Juthani1    tcs 21:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref 50, now ref 49, has been fixed    Juthani1    tcs 21:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I also asked about travel sites at Reliable sources/Noticeboard and I got this answer... so I looked at all of the travel sites and it looks like they're all pretty good except for the following -


 * Delhi Tourism Online (current ref 5) provides no information about the company or references about where it got the information, and thus is not reliable.
 * Bharatonline.com (current ref #7) has no references and admits itself that some of the information might be inaccurate, so it is not WP:RS.
 * Delhi Live (current ref 11 & 17) is a wiki and isn't reliable.
 * Indiaouting.com is a blog and isn't reliable.
 * The above citations have been removed, now all that is left are the pictures    Juthani1    tcs 21:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As for pictures, you just need to fix those problems above... You might try asking for guidance at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. I wish I was more trained at the image use policy.
 * I just added 2 new pictures taken by me. I completely forgot about them     Juthani1    tcs 23:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I talked to someoe who told me that the pictures were tagged correctly. Seehere     Juthani1    tcs 20:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Other than those issues, though, this article looks like a GA. Great work. Sorry again about the wait. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 21, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: pass
 * 2. Factually accurate?: pass
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: pass
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: pass
 * 5. Article stability? pass
 * 6. Images?: pass

You did a great job with this article! Thanks for your patience with me during the entire process! :) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)