Talk:Nirmala (novel)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs) 02:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Plot section needs improvement.	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	Okay.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Presented in correct manner.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Needs work. See comments.	Undetermined
(c) (original research)	No synthesis.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Too short, feels incomplete. What was the social background then? Reviews by some experts and writers own commetary about the novel?	Fail
(b) (focused)	Stays on topic	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Neutral, neither promotional nor slanderous.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Yes	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Yes	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Please see comments below.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Fail	Decline at present for reasons noted in discussion

Discussion

I have started the review. It does not have any cleanup banners and does not contain any seemingly copyright infringements, I will continue with the six good article criteria. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Here are few suggestions:

• The book has been published and re-published several times. I remember reading it in a different cover. Can the caption "Nirmala novel cover" can be made more generic to indicate it is not the only cover? And I think the cover artist (a generic one here) is not needed, its my personal thought. What do you think about it? --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I doubt about the source. It may follow either Rubin's or Alok's translation. So, I am confused. The source just say its from Premchand.[1] If so, lets follow either one version (translation) in the lead and remove the image (but hate it) as it is not mandatory for GA noms. --The Herald : here I am 14:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• The content in the lead should be a summary of the body and most of the references should be in the body directly (thus not needed to be repeated in the lead) unless there is an exceptional statement in the lead. Do you think there can be minor changes in the lead in the light of this suggestions? --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure..The Herald : here I am 13:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Godaan, in the lead, needs at least half a phrase of introduction to make it more appropriate. --AmritasyaPutra^T 11:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done..How now?? --The Herald : here I am 12:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair. I will continue the review. :-) --AmritasyaPutra^T 13:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• The goodreads reference is redundand and can be replaced with a better one. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• The prose of plot section can be improved. Complex, lengthy sentences can be made smaller, simpler. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• The article needs to be expanded to feel complete/ready for GA quality. --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)