Jump to content

Talk:Paro Taktsang/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. 14:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

[edit]

This article is quite readable and is well referenced. However:

  • checkY Pyrotec (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC) - Reference 1, "Paro Taktsang", is taken from a wiki-site: RangjungYesheWiki, and is therefore not a valid citation.[reply]
  • Reference 7, "Caves of Wonder located at 10,200 feet are Legendary Buddhist Caves called The Tigers Nest", is a blog site, ZuZu Top. I'm happy to accept the pictures purport to show the site before and after a fire; but they can't be regarded as a reliable source for any other facts.
I've replaced this with my own book source. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Geography -
Thank you for the first set of reviews. I will attend to them soon.--Nvvchar (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 1 replaced. Refrences to fact tags in Geography section fixed. However, finding alternate references to Reference 7 is a bit time consuming as it is referenced at five places. Hopefully, will do it in day ot two.--Nvvchar (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There is no great rush, I'll just put the review On Hold for a while. Pyrotec (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problematic reference has now been fixed. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more references have been added. All issues raised have been fully addressed now. --Nvvchar (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


An interesting, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing yet another GA. Pyrotec (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]