Talk:Gour Kingdom

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gour Kingdom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 17:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll review this. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   See comments below

   C. It contains no original research:

   See comments below

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   See comments below

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

I'm afraid this is an immediate fail as it stands; the article is very far from meeting multiple GA criteria. It needs someone to rewrite it almost entirely before it can become a GA. The main issues are as follows:

• Grammar and clarity of prose: there are grammatical errors sprinkled throughout; "would reunite Brahmachal to the Gour Kingdom", and "as in imitation of the great Hindu Gauda Kingdom", are examples from the first few paragraphs.
• Neutrality; the language is exceedingly flowery in some cases, and exceedingly negative in others. "Noted as a disrespectful and intolerant tyrant" needs to be something that is said by very many sources before we can report that in Wikipedia's voice. "great Hindu Gauda Kingdom" on the other hand, is flowery language that does not contribute to the reader's understanding.
• Verifiability; the article is currently tagged as needing more sources, and the tag is justified. Entire paragraphs are unreferenced. Furthermore, some of the sources used are questionable; a government publication from 1948 may occasionally be reliable, but is more likely to not be; and desherpotro.com certainly doesn't seem to be reliable.
• I haven't evaluated the article for copyright and original research, because there isn't much purpose; a comprehensive rewrite is needed first.

At the moment, the issues are large enough that there's no point in putting this on hold. I hope the comments here will be helpful to anyone looking to work on this before renominating it. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)