Talk:Dal Lake/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Whilst this article appears to be at about the right level for a GA, I'm being to conclude that it might need some copyediting to remove WP:POV and to provide citations for direct quotations. I may come back to these points later. Meanwhile I will start a detailed review. At this point I will mostly be concentrating on "problems" that need attention. Pyrotec (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC) - This paragraph contains two direct quotations. The citation(s) for these quotations should be provided directly after the relevant quotation and not at the end of the paragraph.[reply]

Added references. For the second quote I have also added the page number of the book reference.

Y Pyrotec (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC) - The paragraph "These boats are still the best option of enjoyable accommodation in Srinagar" - appears to be a subjective comment, or point of view.[reply]

I have modified the sentence. I hope it meets your acceptance.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the general observations on the article I was away on tour on my official work. I came back just now. I will attend to your comments tonight. I look forward to your detailed observations to comply with changes as required.--Nvvchar (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I've been away as well hence the lack of any further progress on my part. Pyrotec (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have complied with above observations. Replies given above under each observation. Thanks.--Nvvchar (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it some copyediting this afternoon. Off hand though I'd say that there are too many list format sections to the article which should be converted to WP:PROSE. I'd strongly recommend converting all lists and putting them into inline text. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List formats have been converetd into prose.--Nvvchar (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A big improvement. Pyrotec (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of recent improvements:

Y Pyrotec (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC) - There is a citation need flag for goddess Durga that nneds to be address.[reply]
15 Pyrotec (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC) - The second paragraph, particularly the new information about disintegration of the Mughal Empire, the Durranis and Sikhs (I'm sorry if I've mixed up plural & singular forms) need citations.[reply]

Pyrotec (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topography & Geology -

I'm now happy with these two sections. Pyrotec (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I've copyedited so far. I'll resume later and copyedit the article fully. I've given it a major revamp, some MOS fixes and reduced some of the peacock and POV. Citations are needed in the places marked though. If Nvvchar can attend to those I'll finish this later.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Work. Pyrotec (talk)

Hopefully, I have fixed refrences to all facts tags.--Nvvchar (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. There are a few cites needed at the start of environmental management. It is important to cite data facts as such. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flora and fauna -

OK. Pyrotec (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished copyediting now. I cut a bit of irrelevant info about the Hindu mythology of the hill as I felt it too much of a tangent to the article about the river. The strength of the article in my view is the environmental section. Having a BSc in human geography and studying river management and sustainability on the course it reads similar to some of the course material I read! Now I understand why Nvvchar finds writing about hydrological management boring! A few citaitons are still need NV in the intro and later on in the environment section and another one in the uses section. I do though think that the history section could be expanded somewhat and made stronger. If you can NV try to flesh it out a little with some earlier history or development of fisheries on the lake. You haven't much discussed the fishing operations on the lake...Depending on available information there might be enough to write an extra paragraph on fishing/aquaculture practised on the lake. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have now fixed refrences to all tags. --Nvvchar (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As desired, I have added addtional text on History (all that I could find after intense search) and fishing operations in the lake.--Nvvchar (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental issues -

No problems identified. Pyrotec (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two "problems" to be addressed (see History). After that I need to add an Overall Summary and you've got GA. Pyrotec (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed one problem of reference to the fact in the history section. I could not locate the second problem. Please clarify.--Nvvchar (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked it above with a

Not done. If you need further clarification on what is needed. Leave a further comment here. Pyrotec (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means that the second history paragraph needs citations (which it does). Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I don't know how I missed it totally. Some url links to the history section are missing. I am finding other sources reflecting the same text. Will complete it soon.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added around 5 references, history section should be OK now. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dr. Blofeld. One reference in particular of Aurangzeb and Durrani was eluding me. You have fixed all of it now. I hope it meets all observations now.--Nvvchar (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A Good Article and possible candidate for WP:FAC

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding the article GA-status; and I consider it to be an outstanding example of a Good Article. I've not been to the Indian subcontinent, so this is not a topic of which I have any personal experience, but its a GA. Perhaps you might like to consider WP:FAC (but do WP:PR first) - its much harder than GA but I think this article could be a future contender. Congratulations on producing a fine GA. Pyrotec (talk)