Talk:Golconda diamonds/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nolabob (talk · contribs) 21:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I have volunteered to review the Golconda diamonds article and intend to complete the review in a timely manner and in accord with the GA criteria. I have a generally favorable impression of the article. As a preliminary, I have evaluated the article with the ORES tool, which yielded a satisfactory result. See the detailed review below, which is updated as the review progresses and as further revisions to the article occur. Nolabob (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

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.	The prose is now much better and of suitable quality.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article now appears to comply with manual of style guidelines. However, see 1a above.
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.	These are well-done.
	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).	The article has a large number of in-line citations from reliable sources, which is definitely an attribute of this article. I have completed a spot check of the citations and concluded that these are suitable (now that the nominator has made appropriate corrections). Since I did find a couple of errors in a spot check, I encourage the nominator to conduct their own spot check of the citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I see no evidence for original research in the article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's Copyvio Detector indicated no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Scope of coverage is now satisfactory.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The focus of the article is appropriate. However, see comment in 3a.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The viewpoint is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article history indicates that it is stable.
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.	The images in the article are all public domain from the Wikimedia Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The nominator has satisfactorily addressed the concern about the images, and the infobox is sufficient as is.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article now fully meets the GA criteria.

Appreciate your keen sense of review and will do my best to make the recommended corrections by the reviewer.

• 1b Cleared multiple WL, and some of those which are very useful for readers and are permissible or allowed as per MOS are kept in both lead and body. :)

• 6b Added infobox with a map, can you help to arrange location syntax. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The infobox with the map is a very good upgrade. Thanks for that. Nolabob (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• 1a Done as suggested removed the last sentence and shifted the legend to the appropriate section.

• 3a Done created a separate section to address the mining and trading details, hope the grammar is correct. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Omer123hussain Just to let you know, I much appreciate the excellent revisions you are making on this article. Nolabob (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nolabob thanks for your appreciation, hope the current article covers good detail about the topic. As I am not a native speaker of the English language so please have a thorough grammar check, especially for the latest edits. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Omer123hussain Please address items 1a and 3a above. I believe this article is much improved. Once you address these two items, I can complete the review. Nolabob (talk) 10:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nolabob, the article looks more comprehensive with a very well-established tone. Thanks for your c/e efforts

1a Done shifted "Idols Eye Diamond" from Legend to section Notable diamonds.

1a Done Specified the legend by Marco Polo.

1a Done legend of Koh-i-Noor looks more clear and simple.

3a Done Created a new section "Mining" and explained the depleted story.

I hope all the recommendations are fulfilled.  :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@User:Omer123hussain Thank you for all your hard work and diligence on this high quality article. It is an interesting subject. Nolabob (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@Nolabob:; Thanks for your review and patience, it is one of the most civilized reviews I've participated in, best of luck with your further reviews.  :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It was a pleasure working with you. Just for your interest, you might look at my own user page to see a list of some of the articles that I have originated and others for which I have made significant contribution. All the best in the future, Nolabob (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Note that this review has been overturned after many problems with the article were found in the DYK review and afterwards. See the "GA removed" section at the talk page. Fram (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)