Talk:Paro Taktsang/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Starting review. 14:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

This article is quite readable and is well referenced. However:

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC) - Reference 1, "Paro Taktsang", is taken from a wiki-site: RangjungYesheWiki, and is therefore not a valid citation.
• Reference 7, "Caves of Wonder located at 10,200 feet are Legendary Buddhist Caves called The Tigers Nest", is a blog site, ZuZu Top. I'm happy to accept the pictures purport to show the site before and after a fire; but they can't be regarded as a reliable source for any other facts.

I've replaced this with my own book source. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Geography -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC) - This section has a couple of {Citation needed} flags that need to be addressed.

Thank you for the first set of reviews. I will attend to them soon.--Nvvchar (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference 1 replaced. Refrences to fact tags in Geography section fixed. However, finding alternate references to Reference 7 is a bit time consuming as it is referenced at five places. Hopefully, will do it in day ot two.--Nvvchar (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There is no great rush, I'll just put the review On Hold for a while. Pyrotec (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The problematic reference has now been fixed. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Some more references have been added. All issues raised have been fully addressed now. --Nvvchar (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An interesting, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing yet another GA. Pyrotec (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)