Talk:Mumbai Mirror/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -ink&fables (talk · contribs) 16:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The article looks really good. Would leave a review very soon. -ink&fables «talk» 16:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

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

---

@Tayi Arajakate: The article was really easy to review because of its quality. There are few #Suggestions which I would like to share. Please let me know if you disagree with anything proposed. -ink&fables «talk» 06:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   I didn't found any grammatical mistake. It does follow all the MoS, word choices are good, and definitive words are properly linked to respective Wikipedia article. This article doesn't have any list. -ink&fables «talk» 06:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   All the facts and statements are very well supported with reliable sources (and almost all the cited websites/newspapers have Wikipedia article). I didn't detect any OR and copyvio. -ink&fables «talk» 06:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It does cover all the major aspects considering the topic. It is focused as well. -ink&fables «talk» 06:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   In my opinion the article is neutral as well. -ink&fables «talk» 06:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   I did found there was an edit war last year, but it is stable as of now. -ink&fables «talk» 06:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

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 logo used in the infobox has been tagged for re-creation into a svg file, but that doesn't matter here. The image used in the infobox don't have a caption. -ink&fables «talk» 06:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Suggestions

• Infobox
  • Add caption for image using parameter '| caption =' [for reference see The Jakarta Post]
  • For 'type =' parameter; I think adding 'Weekly newspaper' with time period in brackets along with "Daily newspaper (2005–2020)" using unbulleted list or plainlist will be a good idea.
• Downsizing
  • Metropolitan Media Company Ltd → Metropolitan Media Company Ltd. OR Metropolitan Media Company Limited
• References
  • Archive all the references
  • [6]: Add wikilink to Newslaundry
• External links
  • Use Template:Official website for official website
  • Remove from India-newspaper-stub category

Verdict

 On hold Waiting for the improvements and comments (if any) from the nominator. -ink&fables «talk» 06:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

-ink&fables, I've implemented the suggestions except the one about type parameter. The paper hasn't started publishing as a weekly, at present it only exists as a website. It's likely they will only start publishing next year. None of this has been documented by reliable secondary sources yet so I can't add that in the article either. I also seem to be unable to use IABot right now, don't think archiving is necessary for a GA? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

No, archiving is not necessary for GA but a good practice in my opinion. Congratulations!! on your successful GAN. -ink&fables «talk» 07:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for taking the time to review the nomination! Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)