Talk:India Trade Promotion Organisation

India Trade Promotion Organisation was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 29, 2016). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

India: Delhi Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trade Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Possible deletion of Commons images

Please note that some of the images being used in the gallery section of this article have been nominated for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. Green Giant (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The images used in this article are original work of the person posting them and are of the accurate description and relevance. saurabh loves wiki (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:India Trade Promotion Organisation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) 16:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added various maintenance tags to the article; and thats after just cursory reading.
Various sections are completely unsourced. Those should be verifiable with reliable sources.
All piped external links in the prose and infobox should be removed.

Contributor: Ola.saurabh (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article at present has about 33 reliable external references, ranging from Government websites to ITPO website to reputed newspapers and online portals.
I support the article as its subject do easily qualify for the notability and the particulars are certainly verifiable.
Still if you are not satisfied, that is even after 33 reliable sources, please tell about the parts of article that still needs source.
I could not understand what you mean by "piped external links in prose and infobox"?

@Ola.saurabh: Quantity of references used is immaterial. All information should be sourced. If that is not done, more refs are required. Hence the citation needed tags. We are not here to discuss notability of the topic; that would have happened if this was up for deletion. We are here to discuss quality of the article. That's what is done in GANs; you should know that when nominating articles. You would see that plenty of external links i.e. links to websites outside of Wikipedia are seen in the prose and infobox of the article. Those should be removed. Ping me once these things are done and then we can continue with the review. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:44, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:PRIMARY while using ITPO's website itself widely as source. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's tool notes possible copy violation with 47% confidence within references used. Please also resolve this severe issue.

Contributor: Ola.saurabh (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to ALL the areas highlighted by Dharmadhyaksha.

Note Done. One citation needed tag still present.

Please positively review the current version.

Please also take care of other points mentioned above. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

various references do not help in verifying the content for which they are used. Such dummy references should not be added. Further to that, you have been removing maintenance tags that I add like citation needed, failed verification, dead link, etc. without addressing the problem. This will not help the article and in addition such repetitive behavior might even get you blocked. Please take a serious note of this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion needed: The nominator shows lack of competence in understanding how WP works and unfortunately I have lack of patience in teaching our ways to seemingly SPAs. The nominator removes maintenance tags without addressing the issues and also barges on my talk page blaming me for not assuming good faith. Long story short; lets have other reviewer review this stuff. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It's been a month since Dharma voiced this review suggestions, still they remain unaddressed. This is a very long time for GAN to be on hold. I still find {{cn}} and {{Failed verification}} tags in the article. Apart from these I can see a lot of grammar and MOS issues. The order of sections also doesn't lie as per MOS:HEAD, MOS:Layout. There are many instances of irregular capitalization in the article. Finally, I suggest Ola.saurabh to request for a copy-edit from WP:GOCE before renominating. As the initial reviewer mentioned, 47.8% of copyvio confidence is a serious issue that needs immediate attention. For now, the article is not at least B-class. My opinion for this nomination is fail.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I ping Dharmadhyaksha to finalize the review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failing the article. Much work needed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on India Trade Promotion Organisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on India Trade Promotion Organisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]