Talk:Indian Standard Time/GA1

GA Review

I have passed the article for GA status following a review of the article's merit against Good Article Criteria.
1. It is well written. - Pass

Well written with compelling prose and no glaring violations of WP:MOS. All technical or cultural jargon is either adequately explained in the article or wiki-linked.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Pass

Excellent job of utilizing reliable sources to source all needed claims.

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Pass

I appreciate the fine balance between keeping this article focused on the IST standard versus the broader context of Time in India. For GA consideration, I think the article mainains an adequate scope and does a considerably good job at informing the reader of the relevant aspects needed to understand the IST standard.
For FA consideration I would consider fleshed out more details about the economic and cultural implication of adhering to the standard has. I would also expand the See Also and External Links section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Pass

The article maintains a NPOV tone with consideration of the reasonings for IST's implemention and makes mention of conflicts.
For FA consideration I would like to see the Problems section expanded with more detail about the conflict and proposed alernatives.

5. It is stable - Weak Pass

There has been some signifigant additions since the article was brought up for GA consideration but nothing that I would consider drastic or "unstable".

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass

In addition to maps, the editors have done an excellent job of finding other images to help conceptualize the article's content.

I want to commend the editors of this article for doing an terrific job in crafting this Good Article. I encourage the editors to focus on some of the areas I mention above and continue pushing this article up to FA status. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Agne 04:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]