Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/President of India/1
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: no action needed It appears that the failure of the GA nomination was reasonable, the best solution is to address the issues, check that the article meets all GA criteria and when ready, re-nominate at WP:GAN.Jezhotwells (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC).
The article nomination as GA by me has been rejected (See:Talk:President of India/GA1). I think that the article meets good article criteria because i think the article is very well written with citations. Moreover i think well formatted ref are not a part of Good article criteria, the main reason for rejection (please see the review page for details). But i with the help of other user done our best to fix this issue has i have little experience in dealing with ref.
Also, there was a sudden computer failure for the last 7d and hence i was not able to edit during those days.
If there are any further issues if exposed, i will do my best. i still think the article has very good potential to meet the criteria. Suri 100 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am posting here since i got a request for comment from Titto. The article fails 2a and 2b - Dwaipayan has listed lot of ref parameters that are still remaining in the article. It is not about well-formatted, but merely about basic ref parameters; the citation style needs to be according to the layout style guideline. The quality of references (vakilno1, school books and other unreliable refs) is the major reason to fail the article. Also the fail was effected after considerable period of hold when incomplete things were marked complete. Considering the importance of the article, i suggest going with a peer-review before renominating it.Ssriram mt (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Uphold review - I don't really know what bolded term to use here, but I think the fail was reasonable. The article seems to have some copyediting issues, such as the unneeded capitalization in "The election is held in accordance to the system of Proportional representation by means of Single transferable vote method. The Voting takes place by secret ballot system" (criterion 1a). The numerous single-sentence paragraphs and short-paragraph sections are strongly discouraged by WP:LAYOUT (1b). The lead exceeds four paragraphs, which is an easy fix but also a 1b issue. There appear to be legitimate concerns about the reliability of some sources, too. On the other hand, I agree that requiring certain reference parameters to be filled in (ISBNs, etc.) goes well beyond the GA criteria, which explicitly don't require full or consistent references; it'd be helpful to fix this in revising, of course, but not required.
- I hope you won't find of this discouraging, Suri-- I appreciate your work on this topic and hope you can get it up to GA soon! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Rather than simply criticizing the article on minor grounds, i suggest that the article can be improved, the reviewer could have done well - formatted refs as i have poor exp in dealing with those , i myself personally sort his help and also with other user but to no avail. On reliability issue, i have sorted it out (check it out).Suri 100 (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
But of course i will myself do my best correct the issues in the article (of course excluding ref!). Suri 100 (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)