Talk:Hoollongapar Gibbon Sanctuary/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SMasters (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There were a few punctuation issues which I have fixed. There are a couple of dab links, and the official website is a dead link (not sure if this is temporary). Also, are there any relevant templates that can go at the bottom of the article?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article is properly referenced and complies to WP:NPOV.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

    Question: Is the reserve open to the public? If it is, the article should include something about this.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images check out.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thanks for doing the review. I have fixed the dab links, added a few more links, added a nav template, commented out the official website (...not sure where it went), and I have have searched unsuccessfully for information about whether the park is open to the public. The only information I can find is on other (unsourced) Wiki articles, but it appears that "wildlife sanctuaries" in India are one step down from national parks. ("Reserved forests" (RFs) are one step down from wildlife sanctuaries.) My guess is that it is open to the public, but as of yet, I haven't found anything to confirm that. Once I get home this evening, I want to review one more source before you possibly pass this article. I just realized that there may be a little bit more information to add. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problems. – SMasters (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've made some slight additions and adjustments, and I am ready for the GAN to resume. Sorry for not having done all of this before nominating. I completely forgot. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing all my concerns. I am confident that the article now complies to all the requirements for a GA, and am happy to pass it. Well done. – SMasters (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review! – VisionHolder « talk » 17:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)