Talk:Acharya Institutes/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vibhijain (talk · contribs) 15:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(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);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The lead should have something regarding the history, like the establishment year. Also section 4 should be written in prose format. Done Sourav Mohanty (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Why there are unnecessary bold and italic letters in section 8.2 and 8.3. Also why the statement "AIT is one of the seven colleges ... and postgraduate departments." is in the history section? Done Sourav Mohanty (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]	Fail
(b) (MoS)	Remove all flags from section 6 as per MOS:FLAG. Done Sourav Mohanty(talk) 14:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Use ";" instead of <big>'''..'''</big>. For example ";DH-PV edu-counselling" instead of "<big>'''DH-PV edu-counselling'''</big>" Done Sourav Mohanty (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]	Fail

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	References should be placed after punctuation marks. Like in section 2.1, "AIT admits students ... or their COMEDK UGET[35] ranks." should be change to "AIT admits students ... or their COMEDK UGET ranks.[35]" Done Sourav Mohanty (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]	Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Ref no.92 is not reliable (facebook). Also no references has been provided for the statement "AIT maintains ... ratio of 1:10.". Same is the case with the "motto" and "colours" section of the infobox. Also fix the dead links. Done. There is no reference for the "colours" as the AIT logo itself indicates the colours of the college. Sourav Mohanty (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]	Fail
(c) (original research)	See "popular and most sought after colleges" in the lead section. The source doesn't says that the college is popular and most sought after. It just says that it is a notable college of Bangalore. Done Sourav Mohanty (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]	Fail

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Remove words like "renowned" from section 2.5 Done Sourav Mohanty (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]	Fail

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)		Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	As per WP:NOTGALLERY, section 14 should be removed. Done Sourav Mohanty (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC) There arr too many images at this moment, please remove unnecessary ones. Done. Removed the unnecessary images. Sourav Mohanty (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]	Fail

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	~~Will wait for 1 week so this issues are solved. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 06:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)~~[reply] Article passed. Congrats! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 10:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

Additional Notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]