Talk:Sundarbans/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 15:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up later today. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this size, WP:LEAD recommends 3-4 paragraphs. The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, without containing unique information (information not found in the body).
   • Standardize to one variety of English. I see both meter and metre
   • Conversions are needed for areas, distances, etc. The {{convert}} template is the way I like to do conversions, but a manual conversion is OK too.
   • Geography - "The Sundarbans has also been enlisted among the finalists in the New7Wonders of Nature." - When? What was the result?
   • There are huge numbers of duplicate links - for example, I think I saw Bay of Bengal linked at least four times, and Bangladesh at least as many. There is already a substantial amount of blue links in this article - don't dilute them by repeating linking on basic things.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Eleven dead links - see the report.
   • The referencing needs significant work. There are many sections and paragraphs, containing opinions, statistics, etc. that are partially or even fully unreferenced. For example (not a comprehensive list), see:

   • Last paragraph of the History section.
   • End of both paragraphs in Geography
   • Second paragraph of Sundarbans Mangroves
   • End of first paragraph and all of second paragraph in Fauna
   • First paragraph of Climate change impact
   • Most of second paragraph of Economy
   • Most of Habitation section

   It appears that the article is using a mix of parenthetical referencing "(Banerjee, 1998)" and footnotes. It should be standardized to one or the other (footnotes are the most common on WP, and appear to predominate in this article, but either is OK).

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Do we need two photos of a crocodile? (Predators and Aqua fauna)

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Unfortunately, a significant amount of work is needed for this article to be of GA status, mainly focused on referencing. Due to the large amounts of work needed on references, I've only conducted a skim review of prose, coverage and neutrality. Once the referencing is fixed up, I look forward to seeing the article back at GAN! Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)