Talk:Murugan Temple, Saluvankuppam/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 12:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this article soon.

Note: The link checker has found two dead links that need to be replaced.

Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some preliminary copy editing[1] - feel free to revert if you don't like.

There are now three dead links to citations that need to be replaced.

Once these are fixed I'll complete the review. Meanwhile I'll put the article on hold. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few additional edits which you are free to correct and fixed the disambig problems.[2]
I'm unclear why the last citation has two different isbn numbers, but they both seem relevant. In any case the is an excellent article, perhaps too many citations, but I understand why an editor wants to be careful.

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources:

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed:

B. Remains focused:
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass! A wonderful article, well written and interesting.

Thanks a lot :)-Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 01:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]