Talk:Chandragupta Maurya/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ssriram mt (talk · contribs) 17:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The page is much far from GA simply on account of references and article struct.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Needs restructuring - it is not cogent.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Many statements have missing references
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	some claims are partially referenced
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No copyright issues with images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image alts are missing
	7. Overall assessment.	Fail

Would you please elaborate a bit on 2a 2b and 2c fails? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The very first para on biographical sources is without any reference. War, marriage section - external links are provided, but would need stronger references as most of the references are not direct (no mention of Maurya anywhere). Succession needs expansion and citation. Popular culture - needs references.Ssriram mt (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ssriram mt: Mookerji is used as reference in biographical section already. Did you miss that? War Marriage section has citations from no. 61 to no. 79. I could find only 1 External Link in the said para, which qualifies WP:RS. Would you please use {{Citation needed}} and {{better}} tag to mark the unsourced statements of para as I am unable to find them. There were only two unsourced statements in popular culture which have been removed. The only section left is Succession. Kindly correct me if I am wrong. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Reference and reference structure definitely needs a relook - because for most part the claims are around a single reference or not direct as mentioned already. Once it is all done, you may wish to go for a GOCE as well.Ssriram mt (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)