This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
The article was nominated for GA by User:AKS.9955. I have reverted that edit as any other normal edit and not created a GA review page and then failed it there. That's to save one extra unnecessary page. The article would anyways be failed quickly even if anyone bothers to review it. The user is comparatively new to Wikipedia and am ready to assume good faith here in understanding that they don't really understand what GA is. Had they not been new, i would even consider such edit as vandalism, which leads to wastage of time of other well-meaning editors. Please go through Wikipedia:Good article criteria before you nominate other articles; if you are planning for any. If you are unreasonable and still fail to understand why this article can't even stand to try to be a GA, you should approach some patient editors who could guide you from Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user project. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dharmadhyaksha, Read your reply and I must state that I am shocked to see such a rude and discouraging comment; especially from an experienced user. Well, my judgement about the GA nomination could have been incorrect but why are discussing in a rude and punitive manner? You could have been more subtle; right? I did read the guidelines and following is the Criteria for WP:GA; which is below and how does the article comply to them.
1.a) Well written: The article is clear and concise, respects 'copyright laws', and the spelling and grammar are correct.
1.b) Well written: Article does not violate manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2) Verifiable with no original research: There are no original researches in the article. All references from reliable sources.
3) Broad in its coverage: The article addresses the main aspects & stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
4) Neutral: Article is totally neutral.
5) Stable: Yes, the article is stable.
6) Illustrated, if possible, by images: No, I could not upload pictures as I could not find free use images.
If there are any more rules for GA, then let me know. I am not sure if there are any unwritten rules. I am expecting a valid explanation for the reason of this rude and unwarranted comeback; with the intention to bite a new user (WP:BITE). Is there a rule that says that failed GA nominations can be marked as vandalism OR is that your own imagination? I would be keen in knowing that too. I came across this interesting topic. If you have a point, please make it. I understand that everyone's time is important. What you failed to notice is that even my time is equally important and I would not want to waste it on such exchange of messages. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this 9 sentence article --possibly a BLP-- fails potential consideration of GA status as described at WP:WIAGA under the criteria "Broad in its coverage". Perhaps additional RS would assist with an article expansion. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
