Talk:Tulsi Peeth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Articleye (talk · contribs) 11:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Fails criterion 3a. Several major aspects on the topic are not included in the article. For example, what is the organization structure of Tulsi Peeth? Who are the main office bearers? What is the organization registered as, is it an NGO or a recognized religious body/organization? What is the legal status of the organization? How many students graduate every year and what do they learn? Where does it get funding from? How and by whom are financial matters handled? What does the research community/Indologists say about the claim that "the Peeth is situated at the place where the Hindu god Rama gave his sandals to his brother Bharat", is it universally accepted or has there been any criticism? Any emblems or logos used by the organization?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   While the article is well written and meets most of the criteria for a GA, it is not broad enough and needs to include all major aspects on the topic, thus it fails criterion 3a and cannot be passed at this time. The article needs major expansion before it can be re-considered for a GA review. Articleye (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)