Talk:Bangladesh at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Dipankan001 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review[edit]

  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Prose all right. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) I'd like to see "Sarkar ranked sixth overall in the semifinal round for 100m Women race", where "Sarkar" has a link to the person. Neutral Neutral
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) References checked. No problem found except Ref. 6 with a little signal problem. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Sources are pretty well and fine Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No original research Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) I'd have from my side liked to see a bit more content. Neutral Neutral
    (b) (focused) It is not out of topic or irrelevant. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    No bias found; sources given for questionable sentences. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    No edit wars; major editors are Vibhijain and Srirarkashyap Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Very few images; I'm not satisfied. Fail Fail
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) No notes. Fail Fail

Result[edit]

Result On a more close look I see that there was a recent copyright problem. Article is also going through a major copyedit at the moment. Sorry not a GA, though, but feel free to renominate after problems have been cleared.
Fail Fail Going through a copyedit at the moment; nominate later. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 17:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

No discussion here.

Additional Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

GA?[edit]

Copyvio issues aside (as signaled on my talk page by another editor), the writing in this article is in no way up to GA standards. I've already made one copyedit and I'll make a few more to indicate what I'm talking about. IMO, the GA designation should be yanked until that (and maybe other issues) is resolved. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put forward the reason. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 17:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason is completely unclear. I thought the possibly copyvio was handled via attribution in an edit summary, so please explain. Also, you really need to address the problems I signaled: how is it you passed an article with so many obvious writing problems? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Going through a copyedit at the moment; nominate later. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 05:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bangladesh_at_the_2011_Commonwealth_Youth_Games/GA1&oldid=1038139697"