GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Will review this soon. Jaguar 22:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

[edit]
Done Feel free to remove any unnecessary links that I missed out. --Hildanknight (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain the grammar error. --Hildanknight (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no actual error, but it is missing a preposition ("to") so I though it would sound better like Balaji Sadasivan was born on 11 July 1955 in Singapore, to the son of Indian immigrants. It doesn't really matter though, the rest of the article is well written. Jaguar 17:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done That was easy. --Hildanknight (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Done differently Actually, all the "references" were already in the Notes section, so I removed the References section and renamed the Notes section to References. --Hildanknight (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

On hold

[edit]

Sorry this was late. This is a generally well written article and is already close to meeting the GA criteria. Once all of the above have been addressed I think it could pass. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days. Regards Jaguar 17:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Of the five concerns, three done, one needs clarification and one will be done later. --Hildanknight (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

[edit]

Thanks Hildanknight, this is a pretty well written article anyway and now I believe it meets the GA criteria. Bearing in mind it was a short review anyway so it didn't need much clarification! The grammar on that sentence should be fine as I believe it now meets the GA criteria as it is. The references are all fine, I had to check them manually as the toolserver is currently down. Anyway well done on another GA. Jaguar 17:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]