Talk:Dawa Dem

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Jon698 in topic GA Review

Did you know nomination

edit
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Amkgp (talk18:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • ... that Dawa Dem was, and remains, one of the few women to have received the Bhutanese honorific Dasho? Source: ("It [the NWAB] was established in 1981 and headed by Dasho Dawa Dem, one of the few women to have received the honorific title of Dasho" Mayhew, Bradley; Brown, Lindsay (2017). Lonely Planet Bhutan. Lonely Planet.)

5x expanded by Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk). Self-nominated at 16:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC).Reply

  • Article is expanded recently enough, is long enough, is original, is neutrally worded and carefully referenced. The hooks are present in the article with inline citations. Hooks are succinct, understandable and interesting, but I greatly prefer ALT1, because it expresses two interesting facts and the first hook says she "remains" the only woman with that title, but the source is from three years ago, so a hook about being the first is on more secure ground. "One of the few" is also less attention-grabbing than "the first". Nominator is relatively new and so does not have to provide a QPQ. Good work on improving English Wikipedia about politics in Bhutan!   MartinPoulter (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dawa Dem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jon698 (talk · contribs) 15:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    No prose problems within the article. However, the lead is severally lacking and needs an expansion.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
    No copyvios found in this article. However, in the infoxbox the dates are unsourced with my biggest problem being the dates for the Private Secretary, Royal Secretariat and Secretary, National Women's Association of Bhutan.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    This article covers the entirety of her life and career.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    I cannot find any neutrality problems with this article.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    No edit wars.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    The one image in this article is perfectible fine.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
@Jon698: Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI has expanded the lead and the dates are now verified in the article body. You can see the pages referenced from C. T. Dorji's book through this preview on a commercial website. Are there any other issues left? Regards, TryKid[dubiousdiscuss] 00:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply