Wikipedia:Peer review/Haryana/archive1

Haryana

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for GA level asap.

Thanks, -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Doing... – I sometimes post comments in multiple parts. Here are my thoughts on peer reviews, so you know where I'm coming from. Runfellow (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from User:Runfellow

Notes from toolbox (top right corner of this page)

• Consider using non-breaking spaces.
• In text, spell out units of measurement
• The heading "Formation of Haryana" should just be "Formation"
• There are instances of weasel words in the article. These are a major impediment to promotion.
• There are three instances of "the year XXXX" when simply saying "XXXX" will do.
• The navbox template for Haryana contains a link to Geography of Haryana, which is currently only a redirect to this article.
• There appear to be a few external links that are dead or timed out. Consider using archive.org or other sources.
• Images do not have alt text. This is not required for GA status, I don't think, but you should include them anyway.

General notes

I'm going to keep these a bit more general. If you address these and would like further input, just ask and I can be more specific (especially regarding MOS or clarity issues, many of which I have skimmed over.)

• Have you looked at other good and featured articles for Indian states? Of course, they need not follow the same exact structure, but articles like Tripura can provide some inspiration.
• Consider including a pronunciation.
• According to WP:LEAD, for every section in the article, there should be at least a mention in the lead. There are many sections of the article not mentioned here. This will mean shortening your info on the economy so that the lead remains concise.
• There are many instances of multiple wikilinks to the same article. See WP:REPEATLINK. Consider using this script.
• Consider "Name" instead of "Etymology" for section title. Simpler is better, I think.
• There are quite a few sections with only a few references, and many Template:Citation needed tags to address. This will be an automatic failure for [[GA promotion, so I'd address these ASAP.
• The section title lists the name as "Rao Tularam" and the body reads "Rao Tula Ram"
• Some sections, such as Administrative districts and Law and order ("order" should not be capitalized, by the way) are sparse. Consider merging some of these at least until you have some more information on them.
• The Manufacturing subsection is currently a list. Would it work better as summary prose?
• Someone has added a original research tag that you will need to address before nominating for GA promotion. The first two paragraphs have no references, and they begin with an NPOV issue ("Haryana has a rich cultural heritage") so you'll want to start there.
• Additionally, there are other NPOV issues throughout the article, such as "Haryana has produced some of the best Indian players in a variety of sports." Remember that Wikipedia is not an advertisement, so you'll want to eliminate these kinds of biased statements.

Suggestions for moving forward

1. Address as much as possible of what I've listed here.
2. When you're done, post it here OR if the review has been archived, begin another review. I believe you'll need another review before going to GA nomination, but that's up to you.
3. After the second go-around, you might want to consider requesting a copyedit with the GOCE. Unfortunately, this takes a lot of time. Don't request unless you've addressed what's here already, though.
4. Then recommend for GA status.

I don't want to sound overly negative. I remember when I submitted an article for my first peer review (I don't know if this is your first or not, just guessing) and someone kind of ripped it apart. Just keep working at it. If you have the passion to improve this article, keep improving it using featured articles and the MOS as your guide. Runfellow (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to resolve much of the issues listed here. However, I am finding it difficult to fix the issue of ref and OR. Can you please help with a suggestion for that? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)