Talk:Lalji Singh

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 18:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AmaryllisGardener (talk · contribs) 16:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Review

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

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:

Notes

I made some improvements to the article, but some things still need tending to:

• "These findings later became the foundation for the discovery of a similar phenomenon of sex reversal in human." needs a ref.
• All of the things listed in "Awards and Honors" that don't have refs need them. Nevermind
• While not required, a little more copyediting would be great.

--AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Assuming w.carter is done copyediting, I've decided to promote this article to GA. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent format editing by a user

Dear @W.carter:, I noticed that a user had done lots of citation format editing on Lalji Singh. We had discussed the citation format in length and these were also checked by other senior editors, reviewed in GA too. Are the changes made by the user @Skr15081997: appropriate?? If not, {{u|Skr15081997)) should explain, why he did it being an experienced user and I request him to undo them in that case. Views? Educationtemple (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The Times of India is a newspaper and should be used in the |work= parameter instead of |publisher. Publisher for The Times of India is The Times Group.

References

--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The work vs publisher mentioned above is totally ok, but please do not remove all the |website= | and preferably save between edits so that not the whole thing has to be reverted. Some of the changes were perfectly ok. w.carter-Talk 14:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @W.carter: for the advise and revert. Thanks to @Skr15081997: too for "good edits" (that you could please go ahead and do by saving them in between, as per the discussion above. Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't removed all of the |website=. Please check the edit carefully. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Educationtemple: If you are so much concerned about linkrot then you should use |archiveurl= and |archivedate=. Use https://archive.org/web/ to track archived versions of the cited url. Providing a bare url in the |website= field isn't an aesthetic solution to the problem. I still can't understand why my edit was reverted.--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

I acted too soon and have apologized to the injured party. w.carter-Talk 14:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers my friends! I too thanked @Skr15081997: for his original edits. Let me learn something here, I am trying to understand archive.org, how it functions! Cheers! Educationtemple (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)