Talk:Sarvatata/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Lil-unique1 (talk · contribs) 19:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I'll be reviewing this page. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder of the criteria[edit]

A good article is:

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

Notes[edit]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles.
^ Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)."
^ Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.
^ The "broad in its coverage" criterion 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.
^ Reverted vandalism, 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 to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold. Stability is based on the articles current state, not any potential for instability in the future.
^ The presence of media is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if media with acceptable copyright status is appropriate and readily available, then such media should be provided.

Detailed review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Spelling, grammar etc are fine

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
nothing to add
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
At least one dubious source (the PhD) could be argued to be original research

C. It contains no original research:
see above

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Copyvio score is 33% a little high but probably because of the translation.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Absolutely not broad in coverage - it starts with was a possibly a local sovereign king, a sure fire sign that there is speculation about the origins and heraldry. There's at least one speculated claim in the article and no other information except a translation of the stone.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
barely an information to make this judgement
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
At least one speculated point Some scholars consider him to have been a part of the Kanva dynasty. However, there is no evidence to support this claim. Instead, there is an inscription which names Gajayana as his gotara or dynasty name, though it also is unclear. The same inscription also names his mother's gotra as Parasari or Parāśara..
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
nothing to add
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
File:Ghosundi_stone_inscription.jpg was tagged for deletion by me for including in appropriate licensing. Most certainly not a free image

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
nothing to add
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Not enough information to be declared a broad article, supported by reliable sources. Does not pass WP:BLP, WP:GNG or WP:NBIO

Overall comments[edit]

Nominated too soon after creating
Please read WP:GAN thoroughly and understand the relevant criteria which apply
GA articles need to be broad in coverage, they're supposed to be amongst the best examples we have on wikipedia of a particular topic. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style or its subpages is not required for good articles.

[2] Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles says, "Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)."

[3] Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source.

[4] The "broad in its coverage" criterion 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.

[5] Reverted vandalism, 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 to the "stable" criterion. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of disruptive editing may be failed or placed on hold. Stability is based on the articles current state, not any potential for instability in the future.

[6] The presence of media is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if media with acceptable copyright status is appropriate and readily available, then such media should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]