Talk:Jaipur/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 08:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Closed as not meeting criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Article is stable, but does attract unhelpful edits by IP and newly created accounts. These edits appear to be cleaned as appropriate fairly quickly, though consideration could be given to semi-protecting the article to make the article a little less vulnerable. I will semi-protect on request if significant contributors feel that is appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be any original research. Facts in the article appear to be taken from sources, even if those sources are weak or potentially unreliable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Focus. There are no sections that contain too much information. The problem is that the article contains hardly any information! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query

The article is richly cited, but the sources used are mainly dubious websites such as jaipur.org.uk, rather than the more reliable texts listed in the Further reading section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

MoS issues. The article fails on two of the issues. Advice on how to improve:

Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead.

Layout. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:Layout. That is, images must not be crowding or squeezing text, and must not be breaking into other sections. Sections must be neither too short nor too long that they inhibit reading flow. Images should be either all on the right, or alternating right and left through the article. There should be a harmonious, tidy, and inviting appearance to the article that assists both in reading the article and in understanding the topic. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally fairly lenient on prose that is mostly clear and readable, but in this case, the prose consists mainly of short sentences and lists: "Jaipur Railway Station is well connected to all major cities of India like Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, etc." "Major institutions include National Institute of Agricultural Management, University of Rajasthan, Indian Institute of Health Management Research, Malviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur and Jaipur National University." "The airport operates regular domestic services to major Indian cities including Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, Coimbatore, Delhi, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai, Pune and Udaipur." "Typical dishes include Dal Baati Churma, Missi Roti, Gatte ki Sabzi, Ker Sangri, Bajre ki Roti.[39] Sweet dishes include Ghevar, Feeni, Mawa Kachori, Gajak, Chauguni ke laddu, Moong Thal." "Some of the crafts include bandhani, block printing, stone carving and sculpture, tarkashi, zari, gota, kinari and zardozi, silver jewellery, gems, kundan, meenakari and jewellery, Lakh ki Chudiya, miniature paintings, blue pottery, ivory carving, shellac work and leather ware." "It has many traditional shops selling antiques, jewellery, handicrafts, gems, bangles, pottery, carpets, textiles, leather and metal products." "The eastern gate is called Suraj pol (sun gate), the western gate is called Chand pol (moon gate) and the northern gate faces the ancestral capital of Amer." "The Hindu population accounts for 78%, Muslim 18.6%, Jains 2.3% and others 1.0%." "Visitor attractions include the Hawa Mahal, Jal Mahal, City Palace, Amer Fort, Jantar Mantar, Nahargarh Fort, Jaigarh Fort, Galtaji, Govind Dev Ji Temple, Garh Ganesh Temple, Sri Kali Temple, Birla Mandir, Sanganeri Gate and the Jaipur Zoo." And so on. Few parts of the article are free from such lists. As this listing is barely prose, and not what would be expected of a Good Article, this is a fail. The level of prose and content puts this article between start and C level. When prose is weak, but content is good, I suggest getting a copy-editor in to clean up, but because there is so little content, and the article is so clearly at a start level, it would not be appropriate to get in copy-editors yet. First the article needs to be developed with more content. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage. The article contains little information. The most developed section is transport, which provides no information on the history and development of transport in the city. It appears transport started only in 2006. The section is mainly a list of destinations. The article as a whole is at start level as regards coverage. With, at best, notes toward a possible structure and what could be covered if the article were to be developed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I largely concur with your comments. As an early contributor who could not keep up the regular edits, it saddens me to see that the article hasn't improved much over the time. As you pointed out, there are many unhelpful edits which deteriorate the coherence and quality of content. Even when these changes are reverted, many a times, a lot of originally good quality content in the midst of cleaning up problematic content is removed. As a result, not only the coverage and quality not improved but deteriorated over time. I hope contributors who would want to get it recognized as a good article would work to ensure the goal is met. --Adroit09 (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

There is potential for the article to be developed toward GA standard, though more content is required. Places - villages, towns, cities, etc - are useful subjects for Good Articles as they are self contained topics, generally with easily available reliable sources, and standard layouts that can be followed. Cities, though, especially fairly important ones such as Jaipur, are more difficult and demanding than towns or villages. Doing some research by getting a few books on Jaipur, such as those mentioned in the Further reading section, would provide background information to inform the selection of material for this article. It is not in my nature to quick fail articles as there is always the chance of work being done, and I'm always willing to keep an article open if progress is being made. I have, however, quick failed the last two reviews I've done, so I have broken my tradition of not quick failing, so I'm tempted to quick fail this one, as there is simply too much work to be done. But I want to return to giving nominators and significant contributors an opportunity to work to improve an article. As such, I am putting this on hold for an initial seven days. I will, though, close the review earlier if the nominator agrees that there is too much work to be done in a reasonable space of time. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as not meeting GA criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]