Talk:Feminism in India/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 11:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this. --Noleander (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tick list[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of 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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

See also - make it 2 or 3 columns. --Noleander (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Made it two columns. Kit.i.t. (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations should have page numbers - This is not a hard requirement for GA status, but ideally the citations should include page numbers. The citations, now, are to entire books, so it is impossible for a reader to (1) validate that the fact is correct; or (2) find the page to gather more information about the topic. --Noleander (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this for several, but not all, of the citations. I intend to continue working on this over the next few days.Kit.i.t. (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book names in italics - Names of books, journals, magazines need to be in italics. Article names (within a journal) should "be in quotes". This applies to the References and Further Reading sections. --Noleander (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this, but it could be double-checked.Kit.i.t. (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wording - ".... law has been largely neglected..." -> "largely ignored". --Noleander (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kit.i.t. (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slang - "...huge part of India and its people..." : "huge" is too slangy. Try ".. an important part of Indian culture ...". --Noleander (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kit.i.t. (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wording - "...to birth a male child..." -> "... to produce a male child..." --Noleander (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kit.i.t. (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One source per paragraph? - Best practices are to have a footnote (citation) for every sentence that is not trivial. For GA status, it is maybe okay to have a single footnote at the end of a paragraph, but that is not ideal. If you put a single footnote at the end of a ~~sentence~~ paragraph, you are suggesting that the entire paragraph is supported by the single citation. Is that your intention? --Noleander (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this in a couple of places, but this still needs work.Kit.i.t. (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite needed - Sentences " Caste-community identities intensify all other hierarchies. The polytheistic Hindu pantheon provides revered images of women as unique and yet complementary to those of male deities." are after a citation, and have no footnote. What is the source for those two sentences? --Noleander (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Admittedly I'm unsure of the source of these sentences; since I do not feel they particularly add to the article, would it be appropriate to just remove them? Kit.i.t. (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you cannot find sources to substantiate the material; or if you believe the material is not within the scope of the article, it should be removed. If the material seems important, spend a few minutes trying to find a source for it. --Noleander (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed these uncited sentences.Kit.i.t. (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures - I see there is one picture, but the article is large enough to support 3 or 4. Can you find more freely-available pictures that are relevant to the article? --Noleander (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several pictures from Wikimedia Commons. Kit.i.t. (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead - WP:LEAD suggests that the lead summarize the entire article, but not exceed 4 paragraphs. This lead is a bit skimpy. Try to make it larger and summarize all major sections/points of the article. --Noleander (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two paragraphs to the lead.Kit.i.t. (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text - All of the images should have alt text. You can read about how to add alt text here. Neelix (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kit.i.t. (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that Alt text for images was a requirement for Featured Article status, but not for Good Article status. Am I mistaken? --Noleander (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good captions are far more important than alt text. Most blind readers are actually annoyed at having to listen to both the caption and the alt text (from the feedback I've seen). Personally, I wouldn't include alt text as a GA requirement. Kaldari (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings - Common nouns, such as "ratio" in "Birth Ratio" and "feminists" in "Notable Indian Feminists," should not be capitalized in the section headings. Also, the "Muslim feminism" section heading should be made consistent with the Islamic feminism article. Neelix (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kit.i.t. (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation - The caption for the first standalone image is not a sentence, so it should not have a period at the end. Alos, the last sentence of the "Globalization" section should not have two periods at the end. Neelix (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Kit.i.t. (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Indian feminists - Each entry in this section should be sourced. Neelix (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Kit.i.t. (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to mark items "done"[edit]

When you address each of the issues above, please mark it "done" in the "reply here" area. Or, if you have any questions, or reasons why the change should not be made, explain in the "reply here" area. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the great help. My students really appreciate this as they are working on the article for a campus wiki project. Prof M Johnson (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to improve the lede, I recommend writing a single summary paragraph for each of the four main sections and ensuring that every subsection is represented by at least one sentence in its broader section's corresponding paragraph in the lede. Great job so far! This article is nearing good status. Neelix (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your helpful suggestions! Kit.i.t. (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final tasks[edit]

Kit: Two final tasks, and then I'll mark the article as GA status:

Footnote link - Footnotes #33, #35, and #38 are broken (at least at this moment in time). Could you double-check all the external URL links in the footnotes, and if they are broken/obsolete, then remove the link and just leave the title/date/author of the document in its place? Or find an updated URL that works? --Noleander (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguous link - link shetty needs to be dis-ambiguated. --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind ... that is a legitimate link. --Noleander (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you've done a great job! --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the links! Kit.i.t. (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, and a world of difference compared to the Caste politics in India which I guess was part of the same assignment, and which I had to fail recently. Simply looking at the responsiveness of the editor(s) here and there shows one of the major strength of those here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]