Talk:Jamshedpur/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   • Sections should not be composed of a single bullet point that doesn't even have a full sentence, such as the Jamshedpur in popular culture section.
   • The see also list should be trimmed. Links that are already included in the article can be removed, as can any low-value links.
   • There are far too many lists in this article. They should only be used when absolutely necessary; otherwise, they should be turned into prose.
   • There is excess bolding throughout the article.
   • What is the criteria for the Places of interest section? Because it's not referenced, it's hard to tell. Same for the notable people section.
   • Way too many short paragraphs. Paragraphs of one or two sentences should be expanded or combined with other paragraphs.
   • The lead should not include information that is not in the body of the article - it should simply be a summary of the body.
   • Because of all of the other issues with the article, I have not done a complete prose check.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • This article is extensively under-referenced. This is especially pertinent in sections like History, where "legends" are told without references, and Demographics, where statistics are given without references.
   • Many references are missing vital information, such as titles, publishers and access dates. Because of the lack of references, it is difficult to tell if there is original research present.
   • External links should be changed into references or moved to an external link section. They shouldn't be in the body of the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • While it seems that most of the pertinent information is included in the article, it is poorly organized, through the excessive use of lists, short sections and short paragraphs.

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, where possible and appropriate.

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

   • Galleries are generally discouraged, except when they add value to the article. I don't see how any of the images included in this article's gallery add significant value to the reader's experience.
   • Because of all of the other issues with the article, I have not reviewed image licensing.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Because of the number of issues with this article, especially those related to references, I am failing this article. There is, I believe, too much work that needs to be done for it to happen in a reasonable time frame. Once the above issues have been addressed, the article may be brought back to GAN. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)