Talk:Orchha Fort complex/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 19:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is great. Bundela rajput should be wikilinked in the History section like it is in the lead.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead adequately summarizes the article. The layout is fine and there are opinion words or flowery language.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I was bold and fixed the reference style. The references section used a mix of citation styles, but the main reason I was bold and fixed them is because the authors used in the short footnotes were odd (eg. "Out, Time Ltd" and "Ltd, Data And Expo India Pvt"). Since this was the only thing preventing promotion to GA, I went ahead and fixed it.
	2b. 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).	The resources all appear reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No apparent original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There are no copyright violations or apparent plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article covers the subject to a sufficient degree for GA status (see WP:GACR, footnote 7), although the "History" section is quite short. You should consider consolidating more of the history into this section, rather than divide historical information between this section and the "Monuments" section.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	None of the content is too detailed to the level that it should be split into a separate article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article does not have any content that is not neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring. There was a lot of recent constructive edits by the nominator just prior to nominating the article.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images have valid, free licenses.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Decent article, although it is on the short side and could use some more history information.