Hajipur was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 6, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Bihar / Cities / Patna / Geography / History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Bihar (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Indian cities (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Patna (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was last assessed in July 2021. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Hajipur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150316011819/http://tirhut-muzaffarpur.bih.nic.in/ to http://tirhut-muzaffarpur.bih.nic.in/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gammonindia.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623065703/http://www.bihardevelopment.org/catchall.php?link_1_id=20 to http://bihardevelopment.org/catchall.php?link_1_id=20&link_2_id=271&writeup_link_level=link_3&writeup_link_id=1074
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140918091228/http://bstdc.bih.nic.in/patna.htm to http://bstdc.bih.nic.in/Patna.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gammonindia.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150722044101/http://bstdc.bih.nic.in/Vaishali.htm to http://bstdc.bih.nic.in/vaishali.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150722044101/http://bstdc.bih.nic.in/Vaishali.htm to http://bstdc.bih.nic.in/vaishali.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141104171635/http://www.prdbihar.in/AdminPanel/Files/Advertisements/13328.pdf to http://www.prdbihar.in/AdminPanel/Files/Advertisements/13328.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120506225623/http://www.sonpurrail.gov.in/ to http://www.sonpurrail.gov.in/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927084149/http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Recommendation/Documents/Rcommendation81210.pdf to http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Recommendation/Documents/Rcommendation81210.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150316011819/http://tirhut-muzaffarpur.bih.nic.in/ to http://tirhut-muzaffarpur.bih.nic.in/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hajipur/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 05:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello ItsSkV08, I'll be reviewing this nomination and present the review shortly. I hope my feedback will be helpful to you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ItsSkV08, this is far from a good article and has major problems. I have still done a complete review to help you understand what's wrong with it. It has problems with the sources used, original research, it's incomplete and it has copyright violations. See the comments below and the assessment table for details. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see that you are new contributor, so i would suggest reading through Wikipedia's policies and taking the comments as an example for what kind of sources are unreliable. I hope this review gives you an idea of what's needed for a good article, if you were to try to promote an article at a later date. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• History is incomplete, a place which can be traced back to Mahabharata needs a much more detailed history section than three short paragraphs.
• Demographics is incomplete. The religion data is unsourced and the two charts need to have corresponding text in the article.
• Economy is incomplete. It is entirely sourced for primary government data and announcements, needs secondary sources and more details on other aspects beyond EPIP.
• Art, culture and tourism is incomplete, it's only a list of sites. There is no text on arts or culture.
• The sections from Education to Sports and recreation are all just lists with near no other information. It also does not follow the MOS:LIST.
• There are problems with a lot of sources, most of them are unreliable. I've listed out the sources below.
  • The 1889 book on History of India is too old to be used, there a WikiProject India prohibition on the use of Raj era sources.
  • hajipuronline.in is a commercial service provider and most of its material is just promotion for its clients.
  • buddhist-temples.com is a blog.
  • Popular Prakashan is a self publishing service.
  • populstat.info is another self published source.
  • Website about pages such a Ramachura Mandir homepage, BSNL homepage, etc are not independent sources.
  • Some of the sources also don't link anywhere, for example the Jagran source links to their home page. Bhaskar or Hindustan are also preferable over Jagran, the latter doesn't distinguish sponsored and non-sponsored posts.
  • indiarailinfo.com is also a self published source.
  • generalknowledgequizblog.com is a blog.
• There are unsourced lines and examples of original research where sources are synthesised to make statements which are not directly supported by a source. There is also an over-reliance on primary sources among the reliable ones such as government data repositories. These need to be replaced with secondary sources such as academic journals or books, or at least reliable news organisations.
• There are copyright violations in the article, see Earwig's copyvio detector. Likely needs cleanup. Some of the images appear suspect to me as well.

Assessment

1. Comprehension:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The comprehension is alright.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The article has manual of style issues.	Fail

2. Verifiability:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	There are references, but formatting needs improvement.	Neutral
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	There are many unreliable and questionable sources in the article.	Fail
(c) (original research)	Original research is present in the article.	Fail
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Copyvio cleanup is required.	Fail

3. Comprehensiveness:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article is incomplete.	Fail
(b) (focused)	The article is focused without unnecessary deviations.	Pass

4. Neutrality:

Notes	Result
No neutrality issues were found.	Pass

5. Stability:

Notes	Result
No edit warring, major changes or content disputes.	Pass

6. Illustration:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Images have possible copyright violations.	Don't know
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	No issues with captions.	Pass