Talk:Gate of Mercy Synagogue/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review

Images used in this article:

1. File:Gate of Mercy Synagogue 3.jpg - Located on Wikimedia Commons. Taken by Nichalp (talk · contribs), checks out, and image page contains appropriate information.  Done. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
2. File:Mumbai area locator map.svg - Located at Wikimedia Commons. Made by Planemad (talk · contribs), will inquire further about this one.

   Started a deletion discussion of this one at Commons - I am not certain that material from Google Maps can be licensed under "GFDL / Creative Commons - Share Alike", so hopefully this discussion will prove fruitful. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Stability review complete. Cirt (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Stability review Review of article's edit history reveals no problems or issues/disputes. Review of article's talk page history also shows no issues.  Done. Cirt (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 17, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass. Written in clear and understandable wording.

2. Factually accurate?: Pass. Duly cited throughout to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources.

3. Broad in coverage?: Not passing at this time. Issues remain to be addressed here.

• Per WP:LEAD, the lede should be a summary of the article, and should stand alone as its own piece. Instead, the lede appears to introduce new information, not yet present later on in the article body itself.
• The article and amount of references used seems a bit skimpy. Surely with a bit more research more sources can be found to incorporate into the article and expand it further with more info?

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass. Article is written in a neutral, matter of fact tone.

5. Article stability? Pass. See above.

6. Images?: Pending. See above.

Please do not intersperse comments, but instead respond to above points, below. Thank you.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Will look around for more text. Difficult as when I went there, the place was padlocked. Am away till 2009 =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay I'll wait a bit more. Cirt (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)