Talk:Sheesh Mahal/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:This article is a good start, but it looks to be largely incomplete and does not make full use of the References listed.|


This article is a good start, but it looks to be largely incomplete and does not make full use of the References listed.|}}

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    {{subst:#if:I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!|I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!|}}
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{1bcom}}}|}}
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2acom}}}|}}
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2bcom}}}|}}
    C. It contains no original research:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2ccom}}}|}}
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: [[File:|16px|alt=|link=]]
    {{subst:#if:|{{{2dcom}}}|}}
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    {{subst:#if:Needs expansion - please make full use of the sources that are already listed in the 'References' section.|Needs expansion - please make full use of the sources that are already listed in the 'References' section.|}}
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    {{subst:#if:|{{{3bcom}}}|}}
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    {{subst:#if:|{{{6acom}}}|}}
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    {{subst:#if:I do not recommend 'Gallery' sections, as that is what Wikimedia Commons is for.|I do not recommend 'Gallery' sections, as that is what Wikimedia Commons is for.|}}
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    {{subst:#if:Good luck with improving this article.|Good luck with improving this article.|}}

Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)