Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka/1

2008 attacks on Christians in southern Karnataka

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. 48JCL (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead has no citations. Every here and there you’ll find a citation missing or an issue. Other than that, this would be an OK article, however the lead is too long and there are some issues. This will probably be fixed after this reassessment. Also, there are typos here and there, not only that but the article has been deemed “not neutral” according to the talk page. 48JCL (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JcL48: Uninvolved quick note, but per WP:CITELEAD, the lead does not actually need direct citations. It should, however, summarize content that is cited somewhere in the article. Per Template:Citation needed/doc, that template is not supposed to be used on lead sections; {{Citation needed lead}} should be used instead for leads that contain information that's not verified in the body. Aside from that, there's only one thing in the article that's explicitly uncited.

If you could point out (or even fix) the typos, that would also be appreciated. The only major issue I'm seeing here is the neutrality issue. If, indeed, there is "a WP:POV that is sympathetic to and has soft tone to the Hindu "activists" who threatened NLFT with more violence in order to stop conversions/ freedom of religion", as mentioned on the talk page, that could potentially be a major issue. Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well apparently the main issue is the POV. Other than that, I really wish I could delete this stupid reassessment I requested because now I feel as if it is useless. 48JCL (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've shortened the lede to address the lede-too-long tag. That said, I don't think bringing this to GAR was useless, @48JcL48:; judging by the talk page, it's been through a lot of edits since 2012, and ideally needs a volunteer to comb through carefully for neutrality issues that may have crept in after 12 years. Definitely work to be done here. SnowFire (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.