Talk:Anini/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 13:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:KRajaratnam1

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article has frequent prose problems. There are sentence fragments and awkward phrasing throughout. I would recommend getting someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to copyedit the article for smoother reading.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), the lede should summarize all important aspects of the article. This lede is insufficient. There are other problems as well. There are lists that should be incorporated into prose. Words are bolded which should not be. Nearly every section is a single paragraph, indicating that either more information should be added or the organization should be made more general.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are not consistently formatted. (Some have ISBNs and some do not, some have page numbers and some do not, etc.) Also, references such as "Google Maps", "Google Earth", and "Maps of India" are not sufficient.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Many sections have sourcing which is fine. But there are several important unsourced statements in History, Earthquakes, Demographics, and others. The Airports section gives an unsourced opinion. The Protests of neglect section has direct quotes that are unsourced.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Many of the unsourced statements could be original research, or could not be. I can't tell with the current sourcing.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The are many sections where more information is needed. I think that Geography and Demographics are fine, even though they are short. But the History section really needs more information. Other sections could certainly use more information, if the sources provide it.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not a problem.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Were you the photographer for File:Anini.jpg? The image description says "No rights reserved", but it also says that the image is released under a limited license that reserves some rights. Which is correct? More importantly, were you actually the photographer for File:41 - Rajesh Tacho MLA (41 - Anini).jpg?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	As a minor issue, captions should not end in a period unless they are complete sentences. But besides that nitpick, the captions are all suitable and the choice and placement are good.
	7. Overall assessment.	Does not pass GA requirements at this time. Feel free to improve the article based on these suggestions and renominate, though it would probably be a good idea to submit the article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors first. – Quadell (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)