Talk:M. S. Golwalkar/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Larry Hockett (talk · contribs) 22:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to review this. I will post some initial feedback later today. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   a) The lead is four sentences long, which is quite inadequate to summarize this article. b) The writing problems start in the lead, as the third sentence is actually a fragment. Other grammatical issues ("supported him in his studies, activities"; "have differed with those from the RSS") indicate that the article needs copyediting before being brought back to GAN. Other sentences are more unclear than they are ungrammatical ("he compares the creation of a Hindu culture propagating the concept of acceptance of a shared Hindu heritage.") Some statements, like (including encouragement to obtain a Law degree..., have opening parentheses, but no closing parentheses, which makes the writing difficult to follow. A paragraph refers to "Golwalkar's choice" or "his choice"; Golwalkar was selected, but someone else made the choice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The lead asserts that Golwalkar was "widely noted to be the most prominent ideologue of Hindutva", but the body of the article never really demonstrates this. There are other points in the entry that require elaboration, such as the statement about Golwalkar not completing a doctorate because of his father's retirement.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article appears to mostly follow WP:NPOV, but in the Ban and arrest section, there are several uses of quotation marks that should be carefully considered in light of MOS:SCAREQUOTES.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

   The infobox image was uploaded as "own work" created in 2013, but the subject had been deceased for 40 years by the time the image was supposedly created. The image should be eligible for fair use, but a Creative Commons license doesn't seem appropriate.

7. Overall: Because this article is far from meeting several of the GA criteria as noted above, a detailed review is not indicated right now.

   Pass/Fail: