Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Parkala Massacre/1

Parkala Massacre

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Parkala_Massacre/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Clear consensus to delist AIRcorn (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

WBG's comments

 * Fails Criterion 2 (c)
 * Two of the used sources:- 1 and 2 mention anything about the subject. Nothing in those two sources leads one to conclude that Parkala was one of the massacres that led Nehru to annex the state.
 * I have read Moraes' biography of Nehru and I have come across any mention of the Parkala incident. The cited page is [available over GBooks and mention nothing about the subject.
 * Fails Criterion 2 (b)
 * Itihas Samachar is a reliable journal. There is complete lack of relevant bibliographic data (publisher, peer reviewed or not .....). I searched across WorldCat and catalogs of multiple Indian-university-libraries but in vain. I don't locate mentions of it in bibliographic records of other reliable books/articles.
 * Swarajya is a right-wing mouthpiece; who has of-late purchased Op-India (that has been deemed as wholesale unreliable per RSN consensus). Given RSS's appropriation of the massacre; their reliability of documenting the subject is of significant doubt. They fail WP:HISTRS and it's political overtones are amply clear.
 * Fails Criterion 3 (a)
 * The entire incident is covered in paragraphs and hardly achieves the level of detail required for a GA.
 * This is a very poorly documented massacre and my searches across multiple online and offline repositories has nor provided me with any reliable source to salvage this GA. The nominator disagrees with my stance (and we have intensively conflicted). Hence, am bringing this before the broader community. Regards, &#x222F; WBG converse 06:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde's comments

 * Delist, per my comments at the talk page about the depth of coverage, and concerns above about verifiability. The article as a whole is under 400 words long; minus the lead, background, and aftermath, the rest (about the incident itself) is approximately 150 words. This doesn't make it a terrible article, but some topics are simply not covered in enough detail to become GAs. As an aside, given that this is a community reassessment, I would suggest not using so many sections, or alternatively making subsections within a "Editor X's comments" section. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , my second GAR :-( Feel free to resection/re-title, as you deem fit. &#x222F; WBG converse 14:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, refactored. Easier to parse, now, I think; also easier for others to comment, by adding their own section. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

 * Delist, per Vanamonde. It is also marginal for 1a. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)