Talk:Paro Taktsang/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. 14:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

This article is quite readable and is well referenced. However:

Y Pyrotec (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC) - Reference 1, "Paro Taktsang", is taken from a wiki-site: RangjungYesheWiki, and is therefore not a valid citation.[reply]
Reference 7, "Caves of Wonder located at 10,200 feet are Legendary Buddhist Caves called The Tigers Nest", is a blog site, ZuZu Top. I'm happy to accept the pictures purport to show the site before and after a fire; but they can't be regarded as a reliable source for any other facts.

I've replaced this with my own book source. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC) - This section has a couple of {Citation needed} flags that need to be addressed.[reply]

Thank you for the first set of reviews. I will attend to them soon.--Nvvchar (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1 replaced. Refrences to fact tags in Geography section fixed. However, finding alternate references to Reference 7 is a bit time consuming as it is referenced at five places. Hopefully, will do it in day ot two.--Nvvchar (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There is no great rush, I'll just put the review On Hold for a while. Pyrotec (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problematic reference has now been fixed. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more references have been added. All issues raised have been fully addressed now. --Nvvchar (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing yet another GA. Pyrotec (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]