Talk:Ahmedabad/GA2

Latest comment: 10 years ago by SilkTork in topic GA Reassessment

GA Reassessment

edit

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

Article has been tagged with sourcing concerns since Dec 2013. Starting GAR. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Tick box

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

Comments on GA criteria

edit
Pass
Query
Fail

General comments

edit

On hold

edit

There is a decent article at heart here, but it needs tidying up. Looking through the "Article milestones" on the talkpage, the article as of August 2006, when it was promoted as a Featured Article, is a decent core; while it doesn't quite meet GA standards today, it does indicate that the article is essentially OK if tidied up. The reviews over the years indicate that the article has been prone to editors adding text, media and images without much thought to our editing guidelines and policies, and is indicative of casual editing by inexperienced editors on a popular article. While the edits have not been vandalistic (intentionally bad), the effect has been the same as if it were, as the article has suffered, and become unreliable and off-putting. Looking more closely at the edit history, I see TheRedPenOfDoom has done much to keep the page under control, though various unhelpful edits, such as this escape attention as they are sourced and not vandalistic. Given that the article needs a fair amount of TLC to bring it back up to scratch, I am putting the GAR onhold for the standard initial seven days (though of course will extend that as needed), and putting the article on semi-protection for the duration of the GAR and a bit longer, to give some stability. As standard, will let main contributors know what is happening. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

No progress has been made. WikiProjects have been contacted. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have added sources wherever necessary.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well done for that. I'm going to have a closer look at the lead later to see what can be done there. At the moment I feel the article's GA listing is secure. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I still have some concerns about the lead, which needs further development, and the article could do with some further tightening and cleaning. However, the concerns are not enough to justify a delisting, so I'm closing this GAR as a keep. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply