Talk:Amarnath Temple/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 00:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Thank you for the nomination, but I am afraid that the article is a long way off meeting the Good article standards.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose consists of too many short sentences and one sentence paragraphs and sections. Words to watch are present, e.g. "breathtaking". The lead should summarise the body not present new information.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References are present, but some are just bare urls. Statements like "are one of the most famous shrines in Hinduism" need references. too many references to WP:PrimarySources and tourism websites that have questionable reliability.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article reads too much like a travel guide. The route and facilities sections should not be present in a temple article. The location can be described, but not details on how to get there. Very little is actually said about the temple itself i the body of the article.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Don't like controversy sections in any articles, it is much better to integrate the information into other sections.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Sorry just too much work needed at this time. You might want to look at Kataragama temple for further inspiration in getting this to GA standard.