Talk:Shrinkhala Khatiwada/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 13:08, 4 August 2019 (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):

   The prose is not of GA quality and in certain places is confusing or ambiguous e.g. "graduated as a 'Batch Topper' by scoring the first rank in semester 4, 9 and 10 i.e. Thesis."

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The article has citation needed tags, uses unreliable sources such as Instagram and Twitter, and has an overall very limited Reference section with an overreliance on Miss World sources, rather than secondary coverage. (Not checked for copyvios.)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is brief and needs expansion, with sources such as [1]. In the nine months since the article was nominated, several more relevant events involving Khatiwada have happened that need mention in the article (Goodwill Ambassador; climbing Mont Blanc).

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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

It's very unfortunate that this has been in the GA queue for so long, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to quick fail it. It's a long way from meeting the GA criteria and I've reassessed it as C class. See the template above for brief explanations of some of the biggest issues. I notice that the nominator did not substantially contribute to the article before nominating it; they should take care in future to either raise articles to a higher standard before nominating them, or check articles much more thoroughly before nominating them. — Bilorv (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)