Talk:Majuli/GA1

GA Review

Quickfail for being far enough away from passing 1a and 1b requirements. Major copyediting is likely needed for some parts. Johnson524 18:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Johnson524 (talk · contribs) 07:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Dcotos: I'm excited to review this article within the coming days. Cheers! Johnson524 07:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is pretty broad in its coverage, but has enough issues I believe a quickfail is valid.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Below I have gone in depth on the key issues for the first two sections, and more broadly for the sections following, as the issues presented here seem to continue on in the later sections without improvement.

Lede

There really shouldn't be citations in the lede section if these facts are uncontroversial and are repeated later in the article (see MOS:LEADCITE)
In the second sentence, India should not have a wikilink as it is a widely known country (see MOS:OVERLINK)
While I enjoy seeing the conversion templates used for detailing the shrinking of the island, the statistics really would work better in the body of the article as opposed to the lede, which in general should be used to summarize key points made throughout the article, and not go into specifics on a few. (see MOS:LEAD)
In line with my last comments about summarizing key points of the article, any mention of the Ecology, Economy, and Politics sections (comprising most of the article) are absent from the lede, and should be added

History

In the first sentence: "piece of land ," has an extraneous space, though I feel removing the comma altogether would be better
The third sentence is awkward and should be combined with the second sentence
The second sentence of the second paragraph is unclear
The last sentence of the second paragraph should have a period
For the third paragraph, are there any wikilinks that can be added to make the sentence clearer
In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, fix the broken "Mising languages" wikilink by writing as "Mising languages"
In the final sentence, there is a double period at the end

Culture and demography

In the last sentence of the first paragraph, "km" should be written out as kilometer
It is unclear what the second paragraph of this section has to do with population

I am going to stop my in-depth review here, as there are already enough issues I believe to make this review a quickfail, but to touch base on a few more issues in some of the other sections:

The unrelated image of wetlands in the education subsection breaks up the formatting of the bullet points are should be removed
It is unclear what some of the bullet points in the Tourism subsection mean, and a few of them are quite un-neutral in their wording. Not required, but I also think that the bullet points could be condensed into a sentence or two instead of a list.
There is an abundance of photos on the right side of the article. This isn't necessarily bad, but there is also a photo gallery section at the end of the article, including even more photos. One of these should be removed.

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
See above comments about the lede
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Mostly OK, but words like "mighty" in the second sentence of the History section, "grand event" in the first sentence of the festivals subsection, and the entire caption for the one of the images reading "Majuli – A paradise for bird watchers" should be rephrased or removed
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I'm sorry your review failed, but I wish you the best in improving this and hopefully other articles on Wikipedia. Cheers! Johnson524 18:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.