Talk:Virudhunagar/GA1

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

Reviewer: Krishnaprasaths (talk · contribs) 05:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I will be taking on this review. It will take me a day or two to get to it. --@ツ KrIsh nA (ping me) 05:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This article has lots of issues with the quality of the text. For example what does "the sex ratio of the town stood at 1015". 1015 what? Men to women? "was established in 1915 during British times as a third grade municipality". What is a third grade municipality? Any links? "The Virudhunagar municipality maintains a total length of 78.923 km (49.040 mi)". 78km of what? Roads? Paved Roads? The whole article is full of these things. "The topography is almost plain". What does this mean?... I can go on but I think you get the picture. There is not even any climate data, which is standard on city pages... Mattximus (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strongly recommend Fail based on the lack of thorough review and the concerns listed above and many, many more. Would love to see this article back after these issues have been addressed. Mattximus (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This was unfortunately a drive-by first-GA review by an inexperienced editor that was supposed to take "a day or two to get to" yet was completed in 26 minutes. It would have been far more useful to have a review by someone who knew what GA-level articles are supposed to be like.


 * Mattximus is correct in assessing that this is not GA quality: it does not have prose near to the well-written levels required for GA articles. The number of misspellings alone would disqualify it, let alone the quoted problems above. I strongly recommend that the author request a copyedit from the Guild of Copyeditors before resubmitting this article for review. For now, regardless of what the template below originally showed, this is not being listed as a good article. I have accordingly made two edits to the template to reflect the final status. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>