Talk:George Fernandes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Blue Rasberry 21:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bluerasberry's Suggestions for improvement

While the article as it is now is far better than that for many other Indian politicians, it does not currently meet the Wikipedia standards for good article status. I am not going to exhaustively detail every reason why I feel this way, but here are some points based on the GA criteria I would like to see addressed before I gave my approval of the granting of this status.

Well-written

The text itself is fine but the article could use better Wikifying.. For example, this politician has had numerous top-ranking positions, including cabinet-level communications, railway, and industry ministerial posts. Besides these, many of his lower posts have been very important. But the succession box at the bottom of the page only shows him as defense minister. All of his posts should be mentioned in this box.

Factually accurate and verifiable

There are few direct quotations in the article and I would say none of them are particularly important. Having key statements by or about this person to identify his significance is necessary.

Many complicated or controversial sections about this person are referenced only to a single source. It may not be necessary to explain any historical or active debates as to how or why things happened, but at least the article could provide sources to multiple viewpoints.

Broad in its coverage

There simply is not enough content here to qualify for GA status. I know this person has done a lot in his life, and it is unfortunate that many of the big issues in which he was involved do not have their own good Wikipedia articles detailing his involvement, but still, almost every section in this article ought to be expanded a lot. At a minimum, his participation in the 1974 railway strike, his work as defense minister, his support to the LTTE, his career as a journalist, and the strangeness the media has presented about his recent personal life ought to be lengthened.

Also, he has been an active politician continually for a long time, but there is very little information here about what he has done since he ceased his defense ministership and resumed work as an MP. This was in 2004; what has he done in the past six years?

Neutral

I might say that the article is not neutral just because of its very blandness. This is a person who has been involved in an above-average number of controversies for a politician and while some of these are mentioned, the article does not go into great detail about what his stance was, what he said at the time, or even why he chose to get involved in work controversy which did not obviously follow from a strict interpretation of his job duties. This is a man with opinions and not an empty drone doing work duties; neutrality is not achieved by omitting factual statements which describe what this person has done. Also I should say that I think his reputation is that history has judged this person to be mostly right in engaging the issues which he engaged. Why hide this?

Stable

The talk page for this article has never been used, at all. I cannot say that an article is stable just because no one comments on it. Perhaps if some of the content was expanded to include some controversy, then people might come to talk.

Um, back-and-forth edit warring is what this page would be trying to avoid for stability. Pretty much every article through GAN is stable, including this one. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Illustrated

There is no good picture of the article's subject in this article. The picture in the lede is cropped from a picture used later in the article, and it is from 2002, so there are only three pictures in the article. Of the two others, one is mostly of the back of his head and the other is a black and white copy of a copy, although it still is a good picture. I do not necessarily feel that a newer picture should be used because when he was defense minister perhaps that was when he was most seen by an international audience. But still, I would hope that better pictures exist of him than the ones being used.

Reviewer: Blue Rasberry 21:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)