Talk:Tiruchirappalli/GA2
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Initial comments
[edit]I've now had a very quick read of the article, but I've not checked any references, etc. Based on this superficial reading, my initial impression is that this is probably a GA-class article.
I've now going to start a more detailed review, section by section but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point, I'm mostly going to highlight "problems", if any. So if I don't record very much about a particularly section/subsection in this part of the review, that means that it is OK. I would like to have this review finished by Tuesday (10th May) and that is when I will stop reviewing. If the review is not finished by then, there will be a nine-day gap. I'm sorry, but that is how it will be. Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Most of the problems appear to be relative "trival" and should be easy to fix.
- Etymology -
- Looks OK.
- History -
- A minor point perhaps, but ref 12 here is cited as a web site, article title, publisher, and has an access date (all correct), but it also has an author who is not cited. It may not be a WP:Reliable source but as there are three citations, I will not purse the WP:RS route.
Pyrotec (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC) - Notes 16, 17, 19, 21, etc refer to various pages in "Aiyanger", and I had trouble finding the reference. The "problem" is that some of the Notes are using a Harvard-type citation i.e. author-surname (or author-family-name) but the references are listed as Christian name surname (or given-name family-name), year, title, publisher, etc, so the corresponding reference is S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar. This is also true of Note 5: i.e. "Footprint South India" but its corresponding reference is Robert Bradnock, Roma Bradnock (2000).... There aught to be consistency between Notes and References.
Pyrotec (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC) - Notes 26 and 26, etc, use K. R. Subramanian, the same as in References, i.e. this is not a Havard-type reference.
Pyrotec (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC) - Notes 22 to 25, refer to pages in Madurai Nayaks, but I can't find any "match" in References.
Done -The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 19:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. It much improved. Pyrotec (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Geography and climate & Demographics -
- This two section look OK. Pyrotec (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Culture and society -
Ref 77 is merely listed as "TTDC - Places"Fixed: problem was due to typo in {{Cite Web}} template. Pyrotec (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)- Ref 78 is an article from The Hindu, but the source is not acknowledged - missing field in {{Cite Web}} template.
I've fixed it.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 06:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Economy -
- There are various references using on-line editions of The Hindu; ref 93 (Market to be shifted ) is missing the publication date, and most if not all are missing the "|accessdate=" field in the {{cite web}} template.
- Web Ref 109 is missing a publisher and "|accessdate=" field.
- Transport , Administration and Politics & Education -
- Generally, these three sections are OK: all of them make use of web citations and the comment above about the lack of the "|accessdate=" field is also applicable here.
Pyrotec (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
... to be continued later, but nothing too serious found and so should make GA-status this time round. Pyrotec (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Education, Media & Utility services -
- These three sections are OK.
- WP:Lead -
- A resonable introduction and "tight" summary of the main points covered in the body of the article.
Pyrotec (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Units
- It says "area of 18 square kilometres (6.9 sq mi)" with links to the units. Links to common units are excessive and should be removed.
Lightmouse (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Very good. Looks fine to me now. Lightmouse (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Overall summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
An interesting, comprehensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated article on Tiruchirappalli.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing a fine article on Tiruchirappalli. Pyrotec (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)