Talk:Mandakini River/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 16:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Will review this soon. CMD (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There are a few issues that still need to be addressed before this article reaches GA. Items listed below per the Wikipedia:Good article criteria.

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

In general the prose is well-written. There's a couple of pieces of odd phrasing however. For example, "In Marathi-English, Mandākinī translates to 'the milky way' or 'the galaxy'" is about the meaning of the Marathi name, rather than being a term in a particular form of English.

1b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Currently, the lead does not serve as a summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. It includes novel information that is not found in the article body. Examples include the exact number of 2011 tourists, information about the wildlife sanctuary, and the average rainfall levels.

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

This requirement is met, all references are well-formatted.

2b) all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

While many sources are good, I am unconvinced by the reliability of what appears to be an independent youtube channel. Some of the papers don't seem too well-written but aren't covering very controversial points.

2c) it contains no original research

Doing spot checks I found there may be issues in the article with text-source integrity. For example, the statement "The Mandakini region is seismically and ecologically fragile due to its position along a collision zone" doesn't seem to be within the source cited. I also can't see where "The Madakini's rich pious significance dates back to its mention in the Srimad Bhagavad" is covered by the source used. I don't see how "Its plethora of ancient Hindu temples, including the Jagdamba temple and Shiva temple, also contribute to its holy significance. Over 10,000 pilgrims travel the main 16 km (9.9 mi) Kedarnath trek along the Mandakini every year to reach the Kedarnath temple. The trek can be completed on foot or on a mule's back for a small fee" relates to the soil erosion source cited for it.

2d) it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism

"Well exposed crystalline rock groups in the Higher Himalayas and surrounding Kedarnath form the oldest crystalline base in the Himalayan region" is almost the same as the source's "the well exposed central crystalline rocks groups in the Higher Himalaya of Kedarnath valley form the oldest crystalline basement of the Himalaya".

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

The article is quite short, and it seems even from the existing sources that there is a lot more that could be said. The Ecology section is particularly short, with little indication of wildlife present. The lead includes a note on a wildlife sanctuary, so there's clearly a decent topic here. There's also some information about ecology scattered in other areas that should be pulled here.

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

While the overall article isn't unfocused, individual sections seem to meander. The Ecology section seems to cover more river course and general environmental information than information on Ecology. The Courses section goes into more information about the general environment than the course of the river. The History section seems more a current picture than a historical one, and includes information that would better fit in Etymology and Courses. The Environmental impacts section is a mixture of various affects and general background. There should be a previous section covering the general Geography/Environment. The overlaps among sections means there's some redundancy in the current text.

The article does appear neutral, stable, and well-illustrated. For further development ideas, there are several FA river articles which could serve as broad models. Best, CMD (talk) 04:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)