Talk:Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mrt3366 (talk · contribs) 07:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC) : Looks like a good article to me. The level of information is good, looks credible more importantly.

Summary

• GA1: The article is mostly clear and concise, and written in great detail.
• GA2: A good list of references are listed, however some are incorrectly formatted, and may need to be fixed for being selected as Good Article Status. However, several references have problems such as dead links, missing titles (ref 101-105), etc.
• GA3: This article definitely covers the topic well.
• GA4: No obvious bias.
• GA5: No content disputes or edit war is currently active.
• GA6: Images correctly added where applicable.

In short, the article is well-written and once the above-mentioned issues are surmounted, I reckon this can be listed as a good-article.

Checklist

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad links to 2 different disambiguation pages Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad links to 1 redirect which point back (i.e. IIM Ahmedabad).
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.	Several of the references have minor issues such as incorrect formatting, dead links, missing titles (esp. ref 101-105), etc.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	History section contains one paragraph without references.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	No such problems are found.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	It would be better I think to make the size and the placement of the images a little more consistent.
	7. Overall assessment.	Once the above-mentioned issues are surmounted in some way, I reckon this can be listed as a good-article.  Done

Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of the issues mentioned above have now been addressed. Please specify any outstanding issues that still need to be handled.

Batram (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Issues are sorted, so  GA. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)