Talk:Natural resources of India/GA2
I had a detailed look at the article and also the preceding failed GA. I feel the nomination is effected before incorporating comments from the previous review. There are lot of single sentences, a couple of sections without any reference (fishing and forestry) and quite some missing details (like quantity/quality produced) across sections. The prose is also not consistent across different sections of the article. Given the importance of the article and the amount of detail that is needed, I suggest going with a peer review before further nomination. Also referencing can be serialized - page numbers, access date and other prime parameters are missing, which would make it difficult to verify.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- The map of India shown is a disputed map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)