Talk:Natural resources of India/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 16:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Conclusion

I am apologize, but I must fail this article. To start, it is best if you nominate this article in the "Earth sciences" section next time. Within the article itself, there many inherent issues that prevent this article from becoming a GA. First off, the article contains to images. There are innumerable images that would be applicable to this article. The prose in this article is also subpar to GA standards. Words such as sunshine and air do not need to be capitalized in the middle of a sentence. Statements such as "India has a good amount of resources" are subjective, and cannot be presented. The sections forestry and fishing need substance. The entire abiotic resources section needs to be presented in prose format, as opposed to a list. The referencing in this article is fine, but, unfortunately, the article does not adhere to GA standards within any other content-relative facet of the criterion. I am excited to see this article improve, and eagerly await its second nomination. I bode you good tidings and good luck in your next nomination. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]