Talk:Nassak Diamond/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the History section, "During the Mahratta war, the Nassak Diamond was stolen from the Shiva statue by the British East India Company desecrating the Hindu temple in the process[4]", is there a period missing?

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The article tends to have red links, if they don't link to anything, it would be best to unlink them, per here. In the Mauboussin and the lawsuit section, it would be best if "tax" was linked once, per here.
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Why are the titles in Reference 11, 21, and 23 italicized?

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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1A) The "Nassak Diamond was stolen from the Shiva statue" sentence was removed since the reference did not support it. (1B) The red links were removed and the extra links of "tax" were removed. (2A) Reference 11 and 21 uses template:cite book and reference 23 uses template:cite journal. These two templates default to the italicized titles seen in 11, 21, and 23. -- Suntag ☼ 22:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Suntag for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) Also, I would suggest to respond to the POV issues that a user has left. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snags[edit]

Since this article appeared on the main page, some POV has been pushed into it. Also, rather a lot of the in line citations seem just to refer to old versions of the article itself. The term "CCPA" appears, but links just to the same article. Man with two legs (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The POV was not supported by the references and was removed. The in line citations referring to old versions of the article itself appear to have been removed. The CCPA notes specify the same source, but different pages on the source. I fixed the page numbering per Shortened footnotes. -- Suntag ☼ 22:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]