Talk:Anna Hazare/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Roh^G??· 14:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator: Zuggernaut

This may take some time!

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	grammar is rather poor and spaces, etc are not consistent.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Overlink problems and poor organisation.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	need expansion on current agitation (perhaps with a page of its own at 2011 Indian corruption movement
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Let me just add, having seen parts of this article this has no chanve in hell of being a GA.

the organisation is a mish-mash of any and all things organised in rather random fashion. While content is poorly written (grammatically), as well as such WP problems as overlink. this needs a major review before nom for GALihaas (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article has unadressed boxes, and nominator hasn't made any edits. This indeeds needs overhaul and i suggest this fails GAN. Scampioen (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. (personally i cant beleive the attempt to nom, just b/c its long doesnt make it GOOD.)Lihaas (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]