Talk:Bhagat Singh/GA1
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Jim Sweeney in topic GA Review
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments
edit- This article is no where ready for a GA review it fails on references
- ref 1 is a primary source
- ref 3 is that is a book used which is not clear it needs to be formated using WP:CITESHORT
- ref 4 what makes http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n1/bsingh.htm a reliable site also needs access dates
- ref 5 same as ref 3 above and needs a page number
- ref 7 same as ref 3 needs a publishing location
- ref 8 needs the cite web template used with details filled in and what makes http://www.sbsec.org/s.bhagatsingh.html a reliable site
- ref 9 see ref 3 above
- ref 10 as above and publishing location needed
- refs 11 12 and 16 Sanyal (2006) presume is a book needs adding to a bibliography
- ref 13 and 14 see WP:CITESHORT
- ref 15 needs the cite web template filing in and what makes http://www.shahidbhagatsingh.org/index.asp?link=problem_of_pb a reliable site
- ref 17 same as above but web site is http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-martyrs/sikh-martyrs-shaheed-bhagat-singh.html
- ref 18 we do not use wikipedia as a reference
- Thats just an example of whats wrong the rest of the references are more or less the same as I do not believe this can be rectified in time I am going to quick fail to allow you to work on these before submitting again.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)