Talk:Bhagat Singh/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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:

Comments

1. This article is no where ready for a GA review it fails on references
2. ref 1 is a primary source
3. ref 3 is that is a book used which is not clear it needs to be formated using WP:CITESHORT
4. ref 4 what makes http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n1/bsingh.htm a reliable site also needs access dates
5. ref 5 same as ref 3 above and needs a page number
6. ref 7 same as ref 3 needs a publishing location
7. ref 8 needs the cite web template used with details filled in and what makes http://www.sbsec.org/s.bhagatsingh.html a reliable site
8. ref 9 see ref 3 above
9. ref 10 as above and publishing location needed
10. refs 11 12 and 16 Sanyal (2006) presume is a book needs adding to a bibliography
11. ref 13 and 14 see WP:CITESHORT
12. ref 15 needs the cite web template filing in and what makes http://www.shahidbhagatsingh.org/index.asp?link=problem_of_pb a reliable site
13. ref 17 same as above but web site is http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-martyrs/sikh-martyrs-shaheed-bhagat-singh.html
14. ref 18 we do not use wikipedia as a reference
15. Thats just an example of whats wrong the rest of the references are more or less the same as I do not believe this can be rectified in time I am going to quick fail to allow you to work on these before submitting again.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)