Talk:Murshidabad district/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 15:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Will give this one a look. —Ed!^(talk) 15:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Fail

   • The lead of the article should more comprehensively summarize the article, and anything there should be expanded on further down. See WP:LEAD for more on this.
   • The Economy section is overly detailed and probably could be narrowed a bit, I recommend focusing concisely on some of the largest industries here and giving a more general overlook of them in the city, any companies worth mentioning and data on workforce.
   • The Culture section is off to a good start but could be expanded. What kinds of attractions are there? What major historic sites? Any data?
   • "Notable Personalities" section can probably be pared down substantially as it's not common to see this section very big.
   • "Educational Institutes" could be expanded and will likely need some detail on the major schools and what they offer, which can probably be brought in from those pages.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Fail

   • Extensive sourcing needed on History
   • Extensive sourcing needed on Geography
   • Extensive sourcing needed on Economy. I suspect this one can be pared down a bit as well because it's overly detailed.
   • Language section has no references.
   • Culture section has no references.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet

   • "Etymology" needs to be expanded, and I'd suggest taking note of the Joppenbergh Mountain featured article, which does a good job of this. The section also needs sources. Beginning of the 18th Century section could be added here.
   • "Prehistory" could be expanded to explain the early history. When were first settlements recorded? Can more be said of this ancient town located there? What happened politically?
   • The "Sub Division" section could be expanded pretty significantly if possible. How large are these administrative sections? Is there size, population or geography data?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   The article as it is currently reads like a promotion or an advertisement. I would think a writer would need to focus a bit on the neutral language work here. Probably will need major restructuring so the final form would need its own review as it'll probably be very different.

5. It is stable:

   Not seeing any problems on this end.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Some ideas for more images:

   • Any kind of a more detailed map on this region we can include?
   • Cultural sections could use some more information. What's going on with the nightlife? With major events? With sports?
   • Educational institutions could use some photos. How large a business is this in town.
7. Other:

   So based on the above criteria, I would say this article meets multiple WP:QFC issues, so I'm going to have to Fail the GA nomination and allow users to give this article a bit more work. Would be happy to see it come back as some of these were addressed in the future. Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 16:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)