Talk:Durga Shakti Nagpal/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 22:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

The sixth criteria is "Illustrated, if possible, by images" (italics added by me). I interpret "if possible" as "if reasonably possible". Is it reasonable possible to add at least one image to the article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for taking up this review. Unfortunately, no free image of the subject seems to exist. —Vensatry _(Ping) 06:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Although you still might consider a related image. I was in the same dilemma at Calvin Rutstrum and just put in a related one. Again, this is resolved and not needed for GA. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sentence which refers to the people that she was opposing as the "sand mafia". The use of this term to refer to them is unsourced, and I think that this borders on a wp:BLP situation which would require not just sourcing but strong sourcing and / or attribution. Suggest as a minimum finding a source that this term has been used to refer to them, and if it is not strong sourcing, it should probably be attributed rather than in the voice of Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Include with in quotes and added a ref. —Vensatry _(Ping) 04:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead said that her suspension was revoked, The lead should be a summary of the body of the article; this is not in the body of the article and so should be added. North8000 (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the revoking of her suspension forms a vital context as far as this article is concerned. —Vensatry _(Ping) 04:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you but I don't think that you understand my comment. It's fine that it is in the lead, and I would suggest keeping it in the lead. The problem is that it is missing from the body of the article. So it should also be added to the body of the article. And, for such an important element, you might include more specifics that you have in the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the coverage is in the article. So my comment was in error. Resolved. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Meets this criteria. I think that development in this area would be good, but think that it meets GA criteria. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria, with respect to available sources. Coverage is more concentrated in higher profile areas and less in others, but this is a result of following the available sources. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria. I thin that it follows sources which follows general assessment. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has no images, but I believe that useful images are not feasibly available, this meeting the criteria as written. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Congratulations. This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]