Talk:Aparna Rao/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Right cite (talk · contribs) 22:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll write up a review for this. Right cite (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 16, 2020, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The writing quality is good, the article structure is good, and the overall presentation appears to be neutral.

2. Verifiable?: Everything is cited in the article to really good high quality sources.

3. Broad in coverage?: I read everything on the talk page. As well as section, To the GA reviewer. With regards to the available sourcing and research, it is a good presentation of the article subject.

4. Neutral point of view?: I like how even in the intro there is some positive and negative reception reflection on the article subject. This shows a good presentation of NPOV.

5. Stable? Good edit collaboration on the article and the article talk page.

6. Images?: The one image used has a very good fair use rationale on the image page.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Right cite (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best get a second reviewer here before this is overturned. Not the type of review that will stick with the community at large. User:Right cite have you done this before?--Moxy 🍁 01:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, this was already discussed at length. Right cite (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it was not discussed....just passed. Definitely not any sort of lengthy discussion.--Moxy 🍁 01:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Aircorn to have another look. I have also done a lot of work on copyediting post good article review. Right cite (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok perfect Aircorn know what's best. Are you saying your a major contributor to the article and also passed it? Anyways Aircorn will have guidance for us all.--Moxy 🍁 01:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, no. I reviewed the article as a good article. Then, after the review, I did copyediting to improve the article further. Right cite (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I got it....article is interesting and a GOOD read but seems lacking in content....feels like a stub still with just basic info. There was more information in the references than the article..... but none the less informative and educational.--Moxy 🍁 02:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, thanks for that. I think it satisfies the breadth for a good article. I did a lot of copyediting to improve the flow and diction and structure. I'm happy that Aircorn has offered to help me with good article reviewing. Right cite (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this was a harsh introduction.... wife telling me I sound like a dick. Noting really wrong here.... some grammatical and sourcing placement errors and in my view content missing. Just normally reviews are much more extensive. We need more reviewer so I hope you stick around and do more.--Moxy 🍁 02:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moxy, thank you, and thank you for commenting about your tone, I really appreciate that. I will work to get better at good article reviews over time. I have taken a lot of good feedback and some not so nice feedback. I am trying to take that feedback to heart. Right cite (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have read through the article and see it has changed significantly since it was passed. It has improved immensely in my opinion. I will make some minor copy edits (mainly links - I don't think we should link parts of titles). My main GA concern is the image. The non-free rational is very weak. I don't think us not being able to find an image is a strong enough excuse to have a non-free one. That could apply to every article without one. This is not my strength so happy for another editor to disagree. The research section doesn't flow greatly either. I would suggest splitting the last two paragraphs by theme (maybe information about her books in one and her research in the other). There are a lot of her published work used in the references, but this is pretty standard for academic articles. AIRcorn (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aircorn, thank you very much for your assessment. I agree that it has changed significantly since it was passed, and it has improved immensely since then. I did a lot of copyediting post good article review and so thank you very much for acknowledging those improvements! Right cite (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn I recall the image was discussed at the time of its placement and deemed to be acceptable. See User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_70#Query_regarding_upload_of_a_file for the discussion surrounding this. I believe it was determined, after a very very extensive search, that no free alternative could be found. This is an acceptable rationale for non-living people. Looking into your suggested split of the research section now. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now split up the sections. Please take a look. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa knows more on this than me. I would usually like a better rational as to why we need it in the article, not just that we can't find a free one. The split reads better to me. AIRcorn (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-free images are considered okay for people who have been dead for a while. For recently deceased people, we are expected to try a lot harder to locate a freely-licensed image. This one is okay.— Diannaa (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Diannaa, I would agree with your assessment, thank you! Right cite (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Мастер Шторм, a lot of minor changes were made to the article. Could you read through it to ensure that all of the information present is still accurate? Sam-2727 (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam-2727, I will definitely do that today itself, in the evening. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam-2727, I will say that the article has been edited very well, and at the moment I could not find any misinformation. So yes, the information present is accurate. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Мастер Шторм, thanks very much for your kind words, I put in a lot of effort in copyediting after the good article review. Right cite (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right cite, thank you for your efforts. Although typically that is supposed to be done before the GA review is completed, you did spend a very long time looking at the article and I am thankful for that. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam-2727, thanks very much, I appreciate your kind words. Right cite (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the reviewer is indef blocked. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changes by reviewer: This was the content of article before first edit by reviewer [1]. These 3 (multiple edit) [2] [3] [4] and these 2 (single edit) links [5] [6] show every edit made by the reviewer. In total, one new citation was added by them [7] and, in the same edit, a new information was also added by them (the year of award). However, the edit summary provided was misleading. They did not mention that they have added a new source. As commented above, I had checked the information added from citation. It's correct. Besides this, it appears that they rearranged/copy edited the content that was already present in article with the exception of article's lead (where they made changes and expanded the lead). Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn, given that the review was by a now-blocked sock, and you have looked it over, can you please give an assessment as to whether it does fully meet the GA criteria? The DYK nomination was made on the strength of the original GA review, which has to be considered suspect, especially given the needed subsequent edits. It currently has a neutrality template, which if accurate would mean it fails one of the GA criteria. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this as an experienced reviewer helping out a new reviewer. I was burnt on that, but that is not the nominators fault. At the time I felt the article met the criteria and the subsequent revelations don't change that. The template should not be there. It is more concerned with notability than neutrality. I feel a bit like this article is being punished for another editors misbehaviour. I will remove the template. AIRcorn (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]