Talk:Manu Sharma/GA1

GA Review

Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA. I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of copy editing the article before I knew I was going to review it. Please feel free to revert everything I did - mostly grammatical fixes. As far as the article stands now, I have only one issue:

• "Villagers and sugarcane workers have alleged that Manu used his political connections and his pistols to terrorise villagers, and sometimes defaulted on payments." - this sentence - I don't understand what villagers and sugarcane workers these are or how this situation (terrorising villagers, etc.) came about.

Otherwise, the article seems to be of GA quality. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer the questions: 1. The villagers spoken about here are from Bhadson, the farm he owned. Basically, he used his clout to instil fear into the villagers (as what's given in the sources). Using this clout, and pistol brandishing he managed to evade payments due. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence has been fixed and the article passes GA.

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):The pose is clear and well organized. b (MoS):No obvious MoS issues

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):A well-sourced article c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):Good coverage of available information b (focused):Remains focused on article subject.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

An interesting article. Good work in resuscitating it! —Mattisse (Talk) 16:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion

I do not agree that this article meets the GA criteria, on several grounds, not least of which is the clarity and quality of the prose.

• "He was educated at the elite Mayo College in Ajmer, after which he was asked to leave." What is that supposed to mean?

• "Sharma is known to be asthmatic and was given special attention in his childhood." What kind of special attention?

• "Sharma is known to be asthmatic ... Manu initially thought ..". Why the inconsistency?

• "Villagers and sugarcane workers in Bhadson have alleged that Manu used his political connections and his pistols to terrorise villagers, and sometimes defaulted on payments." What pistols? What payments?

• "Since the late 1990s, Sharma also built up the Picadally hotel chain ...". Isn't even grammatically correct.

• "... eyewitness (in their initial testimony) said that they saw him fire twice ..."

There are just some examples of where this article falls short of the GA criteria; there are many, many more.

I have delisted this article, as I do not believe that it is a credible GA. If you disagree with my decision then please feel free to raise your concerns at WP:GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)