Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
I will be quick failing this due to the fact that it needs an extensive copy-edit and referencing overhaul. The prose in the article is strewn with errors (examples from just the lead include "During 1948–49", lack of capitalization for Chief Minister, Prime Minister, and President, "till 1997 during which period he dealt with four", "instigating a strong response") and needs a good copy-edit (I would suggest requesting one at the GOCE, although that might take a couple weeks to get a response). As for the references, many of the references are improperly formatted (the majority of newspaper entries are cited to Newspapers.com instead of the actual newspapers). A couple of others are marginally reliable, like Encyclopedia Brittanica, ref 68 (broken and seems to be to a photo gallery), and a book about him as a president apparently written in 1962, 30 years before he became the president. I am also concerned about the number of statements cited to minor foreign newspapers when better citations to Indian sources with more context should be available: citing small columns in the LA Times, Tampa Tribune, and Honolulu Advertiser is hardly the best we can do for an article about a former Indian President. AryKun (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have neither the time nor the patience, don't take up articles for review - especially when issues, if any, can be corrected. Ashwin147 (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The GA criteria clearly state that a nomination can be quick failed if the article is very far off from meeting one of 6 criteria. This article is very far off from being well-written and well-referenced. While these issues can be fixed, the time-frame needed for the fixes is unreasonable for a GA review. AryKun (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the time frame needed for these fixes? The review intimation begins with a notice of 7 days for the reviewer. What is the time frame for the nominator to deal with specific (and not vague and generalized) issues that the reviewer may highlight?
Well-written and well-referenced: there are points under them which the reviewer doesn't highlight.
Now to look at some of the issues you've identified:
"lack of capitalization for Chief Minister, Prime Minister, and President,"
o These are not required to be capitalized unless the title precedes a person's name or is used in place of a specific person's name.
"till 1997 during which period he dealt with four",
o “was elected president of India in 1992 and served till 1997 during which period he dealt with four prime ministers, three of whom he appointed in the last year of his presidency” – is there a factual error?
"many of the references are improperly formatted (the majority of newspaper entries are cited to Newspapers.com instead of the actual newspapers)."
o The access is provided by Wikipedia. The citation is as per the citation toolbar. The citations as they appear refer to the newspaper, its date of issue and the page and also newspapers.com. For readers with access to newspapers.com, the links lead directly to the newspaper article. What exactly is the impropriety in this?
"A couple of others are marginally reliable, like Encyclopedia Brittanica,"
o EB is marginally reliable? Not to be pedantic, but isn’t it Britannica?
"ref 68 (broken and seems to be to a photo gallery),"
o Agreed; there could be others too – isn't the point of a review to identify issues and give the nominator a chance to rectify?
"and a book about him as a president apparently written in 1962, 30 years before he became the president."
o Like "Brittanica", a typo.
"I am also concerned about the number of statements cited to minor foreign newspapers when better citations to Indian sources with more context should be available: citing small columns in the LA Times, Tampa Tribune, and Honolulu Advertiser is hardly the best we can do for an article about a former Indian President."
o Do these contain factual errors? I fully agree with you about the latter statement. In an ideal world, articles on Asian and African topics should not at all have to rely on Western sources of information behind paywalls but one has got to work with what is available. Again, the point is are these citations factually wrong/disputable?
I understand there's a little star or two to be had as part of the backlog drive, but to take up articles and junk them without the least bit of engagement or giving the nominator time to rectify issues identified is just lousy editorship. Ashwin147 (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, just renominate the article if you disagree with this so much. GA is not a free pass to get someone to copy edit the article for you; as a reviewer, I will not point out every error in the prose if the whole article needs a copy edit. As for the points issue, if all I really cared about was backlog drive points, I would have passed the article after a substandard review to get the bonus age points, I wouldn’t have quickfailed it. AryKun (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
