Talk:Mangalore/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 20:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

1. Articulation

   • No observed issues with spelling and grammar.
   • Clear, concise and understandable prose.
   • Overall well written, follows WP:MOS.

   Exceptions

   • Section for Museums consists of a single line.
   • The line "Mangalore is Karnataka's second city after Bangalore" in the lead is semantically ambigious.
   • Notes should come before References per WP:NOTES.

2. Citations

   • Contains list of all references in accordance with guidelines.
   • Incline citations present for all information presented.
   • Vast majority of citations are from reliable sources.

   Exceptions

   • Citation 269. References from (sailusfood.com) which is a blog.
   • Citation 270. References (Monsoon Spice) which is a blog.
   • Citation 328. References (Karnataka.com) which is an online portal and may not be reliable.
   • Citation 345. References (mangalore-karnataka.com) whose reliability is uncertain.
   • Citation 354. References (mangaluruonline.com) whose reliability is uncertain.

   • Some book citations might require a link, ISBN or DOI which are absent for WP:V. (citations 14, 15.)
   • No observed plagraism or copyright violation.
   • No original research, follows guidelines. WP:NOR

3. Coverage

   • Successfully addresses the main aspect of the article.
   • May have WP:UNDUE weightage in the Sports section.

4. Neutral

   • No observed editorial bias.

   Exception

   • The phrase "is one of India's most multicultural and multi-linguistic cities" in the lead may constitute as editorial bias.

5. Stability

   • The stability looks decent, no edit wars or content disputes in revision history.

6. Illustrations

   • Illustrations are provided in appropiate sections with suitable caption.
   • No copyright issues brought to attention.

Overall:

All the above points discussed for the Mangalore article are done.

1. Articulation

• Section for Museums consists of a single line - Moved this section to the sub-article Culture of Mangalore - Done
• Ambiguous line in the lead - "Mangalore is Karnataka's second city after Bangalore" is removed - Done
• Notes should come before References - Done

2. Citations

• Blog citations 269, 270, 328, 345 and 354 have been replaced by reliable sources - Done
• For citation 15 the reference has been replaced. For citation 14, ASIN code is added, since ISBN couldn't be found. The <ref> tag accepts ASIN code as well - Done

3. Coverage

• Undue weightage in the Sports section - The sports section is reduced and the detailed version is moved to the sub-article Sports in Mangalore - Done

4. Neutral

• Exception statement in the lead "is one of India's most multicultural and multi-linguistic cities" is removed - Done

Aviator423 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Review Update

1. Articulation

   • No observed issues with spelling and grammar.
   • Clear, concise and understandable prose.
   • Overall well written, follows WP:MOS.

   Exception

   • The line in the lead is replaced with "It is the second major city of Karnataka state in all the aspects after Bangalore. The city is also known as the Gateway of Karnataka." The first line is still ambiguous and may not in fact be factual as it is uncited, not encyclopedic. The second line doesn't follow WP:MOS and MOS:BOLD. (Links should not be in boldface per MOS:BOLDAVOID, in fact "Gateway of Karnataka" shouldn't be in bold as it neither the article's title nor an alternative name of the city but rather a nickname.)

2. Citations

   • Contains list of all references in accordance with guidelines.
   • Incline citations present for all information presented.
   • All citations are from reliable sources.
   • No observed plagiarism or copyright violation.
   • No original research, follows guidelines. WP:NOR

3. Coverage

   • Successfully addresses the main aspect of the article.

4. Neutral

   • No observed editorial bias.

5. Stability

   • The stability looks decent, no edit wars or content disputes in revision history, mostly.
   • There may be some content dispute with the above mentioned line, so should get that sorted.
   • There seems to be some content dispute on the "Region" of the city, as to whether it should be Tulu Nadu or Coastal Karnataka in the infobox.

   Suggestion

   • It may be more appropriate to add the official region (Mysore division), or have multiple additions or to remove the "Region" field if there is no consensus on what it should be.

6. Illustrations

   • Illustrations are provided in appropiate sections with suitable caption.
   • No copyright issues brought to attention.

Overall: Tayi Arajakate (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Those changes are done. Please verify again.

1. Articulation

Exception - Those changes are done. They were earlier added by another user. I have told him about the GA review. - Done

5. Stability

Suggestion - It is removed. But some editors are hell-bent in adding the "Region" - Tulu Nadu/Coastal Karnataka/Mysore Division ! - Done

Note: The administrators are not getting involved in monitoring these Region/major city edit exchanges.

Aviator423 (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Concluding Review

Overall:

• Additional Note: It might be prudent to contact the editors to reach a consensus on the region and the lead. Other than that, I don't see any other issue. Also, the line regarding "Gateway of Karnataka" isn't problematic on its own as it is cited in the main body of the article and isn't inappropriate for the lead, just the use of boldface.