GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 08:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nvvchar, I will be engaging in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article by the end of this week. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Nvvchar, due to the length of this article, I'll be completing my review in phases. I apologize for the further delay, but would like to take my time to ensure that I am as thorough as possible. Upon my initial review of the article, it looks like it is in very good shape for promotion to Good Article status! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  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:

Lede and overall

  • Nvvchar, I've finished my first round of review for this article. Please let me know if you have any further comments or questions in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the detailed review and suggestions. Compliance is reported above.Nvvchar. 05:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nvvchar, thank you for addressing all the above comments and concerns. The lede looks good to go. I will be reviewing the next few sections later today. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just recategorized this nomination from the Geography subtopic to the Places subtopic (this review page is unaffected). Also, as the recent flurry of edits has added an empty "Sports" section, that will need to be written before the article can be listed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BlueMoonset:, thank you for the re-categorization and for suggesting the reintroduction of the sports and recreation section. And Nvvchar, thank you for including it! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@West Virginian: I've given it a copyedit and made some minor additions. It is possible you could check a few of the sources for verification purposes, just to ensure that the sourcing is sound?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, I'll be engaging in this review in phases, so of course I will thoroughly check sources for verifiability and quality as I go along. Standby for further comments and thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • Thanks @West Virginian: I have complied to all the above review observations, and also posted the article for GOC.Nvvchar. 05:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nvvchar, I've completed my review of this article and find that it is the most comprehensive article or write-up out there regarding Dwarka. The article in its current form meets Good Article status, but I think a further copyedit would be good for the article's overall flow. Please take a look at my edits and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @West Virginian:. Thanks for all the additional edits. I fully agree with all of them. Kindly leave a message of this upgrade on my talk page as there is no mention there so far. I have posted it on GOC for any additional review. This is one of the four most religious Dhams in the country.Nvvchar. 01:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nvvchar:, I apologize for the GA Notice not being placed on your talk page earlier, so I've just remedied that. Again, thank you for all your hard work on this article, especially given this city's religious significance! -- West Virginian (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]