Talk:Ahmedabad/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

Article has been tagged with sourcing concerns since Dec 2013. Starting GAR. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• There is a reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Prose is clear and readable. I haven't checked for copyvio - there are a wide range of sources, and the information is mainly factual. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Article is stable. There are some minor reverts of IP edits; nothing significant, and not enough to warrant protection. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Focus. There are no details which are overly long or overly detailed, and the article as a whole is not overly large. However, as part of ongoing development, some tightening and trimming could take place to reduce wordage or unessential facts. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Main areas of interest are covered. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Images now OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• Citing has been sorted out. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• Possibly biased language has been dealt with. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Query

• There are too many images for the article, and some are low quality, File:Chandola lake.jpg, File:View of Sabarmati Riverfront, Ahmedabad.jpg. There are also duplicate images of the same locations. I have not checked the copyright status of the images, as that is better done when the current images are reduced. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• A number of the comments interspersed throughout the article are unsourced and appear to be individual observation and opinion. This is likely due to well meaning additions by inexperienced readers, and is evidence that the article is not maintained. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Some of the language used, again likely due to unsourced insertions by casual readers rather than experienced editors, is not neutral, such as "The old city has few bakeries known for making very good Naan". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Fail

• MoS issues. WP:Lead does not appropriately summarise article. There are too many images WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. Images squeeze text WP:MOSIM. There are some short paragraphs and sections MOS:BODY. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• It has been tagged for referencing concerns since Dec 2013, which is a quick fail criteria WP:GANO?. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

On hold

There is a decent article at heart here, but it needs tidying up. Looking through the "Article milestones" on the talkpage, the article as of August 2006, when it was promoted as a Featured Article, is a decent core; while it doesn't quite meet GA standards today, it does indicate that the article is essentially OK if tidied up. The reviews over the years indicate that the article has been prone to editors adding text, media and images without much thought to our editing guidelines and policies, and is indicative of casual editing by inexperienced editors on a popular article. While the edits have not been vandalistic (intentionally bad), the effect has been the same as if it were, as the article has suffered, and become unreliable and off-putting. Looking more closely at the edit history, I see TheRedPenOfDoom has done much to keep the page under control, though various unhelpful edits, such as this escape attention as they are sourced and not vandalistic. Given that the article needs a fair amount of TLC to bring it back up to scratch, I am putting the GAR onhold for the standard initial seven days (though of course will extend that as needed), and putting the article on semi-protection for the duration of the GAR and a bit longer, to give some stability. As standard, will let main contributors know what is happening. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No progress has been made. WikiProjects have been contacted. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added sources wherever necessary.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well done for that. I'm going to have a closer look at the lead later to see what can be done there. At the moment I feel the article's GA listing is secure. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• I still have some concerns about the lead, which needs further development, and the article could do with some further tightening and cleaning. However, the concerns are not enough to justify a delisting, so I'm closing this GAR as a keep. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)