GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Reviewer: Johnson524 (talk · contribs) 07:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Dcotos: I'm excited to review this article within the coming days. Cheers! Johnson524 07:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


This article is pretty broad in its coverage, but has enough issues I believe a quickfail is valid.
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Below I have gone in depth on the key issues for the first two sections, and more broadly for the sections following, as the issues presented here seem to continue on in the later sections without improvement.

Lede

[edit]

History

[edit]

Culture and demography

[edit]

I am going to stop my in-depth review here, as there are already enough issues I believe to make this review a quickfail, but to touch base on a few more issues in some of the other sections:


  1. 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:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    See above comments about the lede
  3. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Mostly OK, but words like "mighty" in the second sentence of the History section, "grand event" in the first sentence of the festivals subsection, and the entire caption for the one of the images reading "Majuli – A paradise for bird watchers" should be rephrased or removed
  4. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I'm sorry your review failed, but I wish you the best in improving this and hopefully other articles on Wikipedia. Cheers! Johnson524 18:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.