Jump to content

Talk:Swaminarayan Akshardham (Delhi)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The bolding of the sentence, "It is also the world's largest comprehensive Hindu Temple." seems inappropriate in this instance, as it not the name or an alternative name of the subject, and seems sensationalistic.
There is a random sentence fragment in the "Monument" section. It says "to Bhagwan Swaminarayan." and lacks any other text. This needs to be fixed: "It contains 148 scale sized elephants in total and weights a total of 3000 tons." Weights needs to be changed to weighs.
Done, removed fragment and weights has been changed to weighs for gramatical reasons    Juthani1   tcs 23:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The theatre shows a movie specially commissioned for the complex that shows the journey Bhagwan Swaminarayan made during his teenage years across the length and breadth of India." This sentence is not gramatically correct. The wordiness is a problem, as well. You need to split this sentence into two separate sentences. Jordan Contribs 11:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence has been split into two    Juthani1   tcs 20:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    The numbering in the article needs to be fixed. An   needs to be placed between numbers and their respective units of measurement. For example, 3000 tons needs to change to 3000 tons. Also, rather than using the date format 27 November, 2005; use 27 November 2005. Leave out the comma.
I've fixed the numbering. See the article history for my edit. Jordan Contribs 14:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have also fixed the article headings, according to the Manual of style. Jordan Contribs 11:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 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:
    There is something peculiar going on with the references in this article. The references section at the end of the article should be changed to using the {{reflist}} format.
    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:
  2. 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):
  3. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  4. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  5. 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:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!


Comments

[edit]
  • 1A. The bolding was done by some IP address today. It wasn't there before today.
Glad you fixed it.
  • 1B. I'm slightly confused. You said that 300o tons needs to be changed to 3000 tons? The dates have been changed.
You need to add a certain type of dash between the date. I have done this myself.
  • 2A. Changed to reflist format, what is peculir with the refs ?
The format you had previously been using showed double numbers in the reference list. The new format looks better, and is also more convenient. Jordan Contribs 14:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2B. Most of the sources are reliable and those that can be contoversial have a backup. Also many of the sources are from the actual Akshardham website which is a 1st resource. Again contoversial things have been backed with another ref. What else is needed?
I have fixed one of the references in line 85. Jordan Contribs 14:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intothewoods29's GA Review

[edit]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get to this. I'm really swamped with work (which I really should be doing right now) but oh well...

I liked the article, but I'm going to put it on hold for a couple of fixable problems. I'm assuming you're aiming for Featured Article, so I addressed a lot of the concerns that FAC reviewers will have. :)

Prose & Content
  • Also, couldn't the Garden of India and the Yogi Hraday Kamal be incorporated into one Landscaping section or something?
It's technically not landscaping because there are statues and things tha you can read. Not only plants    Juthani1   tcs 22:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures
  • The Pictures in Monument and Opening Ceremony might not have the appropriate tags. I left a message at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy, so I'll get back to you about that.
UPDATE: User:Protonk is going to guide you through the steps to get OTRS permission for those two images. Go here as soon as possible. I would but I really have to go do work. Cheers.
  • Does the picture of the dome show the ceiling of the Hall of Values? If not, the pic could be moved somewhere else.
  • Just FYI, pictures need to be staggered right-left-right-left per Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images, except when they're immediately under a level 2 section heading (like in History and Development). I fixed the pics, so that's shouldn't be an issue.
References

Like I said, good work. It's almost to GA status, so good luck. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I fixed what I could. Tell me if there is any other citation fixing. I tried adding more sources but Akshardham is still a new monument and there are only a few pieces of literature that have info on Akshardham. Thanks for all of your effort again on the review.    Juthani1   tcs 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I would like to show one problem. This article seems slightly messy. I know looks aren't everything, and I haven't bothered reading the article, but why should I if I felt like the article was messy? An article being formatted nicely can improve readability, i.e. I don't want to read an article if it looks like a bunch of words thrown on the page. You have really big headings for the exhibitions, but not much in them. Put more in, or make the headings smaller. Also, try to put something other than text, like a picture, on the left-hand side of the page, it would help break up the "Lots of random pics on the right, and a bunch of short paragraphs on the left" feel. Either that, or make the paragraphs bigger. When I come to a page, I want to think "Hey, this looks like a nice, well formatted page. I would feel comfortable reading it." instead of "Ahh, all these pictures in such a small amount of space make me feel cramped. I'm moving on." Okay, I'm making it sound worse than it is, and I definitely don't know that much about design, so take others' advice above mine, but it could use a little reformatting.G man yo (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Second Look

[edit]

Okay sorry about the wait. The prose all looks good, congrats. :)

Some citation things that still need to be fixed:

I also asked about travel sites at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and I got this answer... so I looked at all of the travel sites and it looks like they're all pretty good except for the following -

  • Delhi Tourism Online (current ref 5) provides no information about the company or references about where it got the information, and thus is not reliable.
  • Bharatonline.com (current ref #7) has no references and admits itself that some of the information might be inaccurate, so it is not WP:RS.
  • Delhi Live (current ref 11 & 17) is a wiki and isn't reliable.
  • Indiaouting.com is a blog and isn't reliable.

As for pictures, you just need to fix those problems above... You might try asking for guidance at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. I wish I was more trained at the image use policy.

Other than those issues, though, this article looks like a GA. Great work. Sorry again about the wait. Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2008 (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 21, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: pass
2. Factually accurate?: pass
3. Broad in coverage?: pass
4. Neutral point of view?: pass
5. Article stability? pass
6. Images?: pass

You did a great job with this article! Thanks for your patience with me during the entire process! :) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Akshardham_(Delhi)/GA1&oldid=1141705487"