Talk:Hinduism in Afghanistan/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 09:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this article.

Review

• Three dead links
• The lead is not of sufficient length to summarise the whole article.
• I'd move the image of the museum statue to the left (the second photo) because at the moment they are all on the right, and they should really be ordered in a left, right, left or right, left, right fashion
• The part of Hinduism by country box should be at the top in the lead.
• I'd move the portals down into the external links section
• a tiny minority → a small minority (tiny doesn't sound neutral)
• , believed to be about 1,000 individuals who → , approximately 1,000 individuals, who
• There is no reliable information on when → There is no confirmed date as to when
• the Achaemenid → the Achaemenid Empire
• You link Hindu Kush but a few sentences later only link Hindu in Hindu Kush?
• The first paragraph is completely not cited or supported by sources
• Why is the block quote in italics?
• When Chinese travelers, → When the Chinese traveler (no comma)
• The block quote in the Kabul Shahi and Zunbil dynasty should not have quotation marks, because it is already indented
• Looking through, lots of parts are unsourced?
• The table of Temples re-uses the same citation in each cell, which I'm not sure of why?
• The references should be two or three columns
• Lots, if not all, have having missing: dates, access dates, work parameters, authors.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Outcome

This article is ill-prepared for GAN. Multiple issues throughout the article. Structure, layout, citations and sourcing, the references. What's more, is that looking through the history of the article, you've only ever made four edits in May 2015. Clicking on the history shows the edits made by editors August 2012 without clicking on older 50, 100 etc. So you've actually barely made any contribution to the article what-so-ever.  — Calvin999 09:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.