GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 07:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'll be reviewing this article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The prose is rather choppy, but not to the point where it interferes with readability.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    The lead seems incomplete. A sentence or two summarizing her biography would be beneficial, and perhaps another sentence to summarize her accomplishments if there are enough to warrant inclusion.
  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:
    Standard reflist
    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:
    Citations are comprehensive and sources are generally reliable. Two sources warrant closer inspection (TRT World and The Nation), but I agree with the conclusion reached on the talk page regarding TRT World, and I believe similar logic applies to The Nation.
    C. It contains no original research:
    No apparent original research. Citations are comprehensive and appear to correspond to information in the corresponding sources.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No apparent violations, passes Earwig test.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Current coverage of the article is incomplete. I recognize that there are not as many sources for this topic, but there still appears to be work to do before this article can be said to broadly cover the subject. First, I would suggest combing through all of the current sources more thoroughly and ensuring no notable details are excluded. Second, there are a few other possible sources to use. The book Bombay Brokers has an entire chapter that profiles her (available here with Wikipedia Library). NDTV has this article and this article. First-party sources (such as her website or this autobiographical article) cannot be used to establish notability or verify controversial claims, but they can be used for uncontroversial facts and attributed statements.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    No unnecessary detail.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    No neutrality issues.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No disputes.
  6. 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:
    N/A, no free images of the subject are known to exist
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    N/A
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This article meets the quality standards for GA articles, there just isn't enough of it. If the nominators are willing to expand it, then it should easily pass. More information about her method, books, public recognition, or 2018 legal troubles would be incredibly beneficial. But any relevant information found in the sources should be included. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thebiguglyalien thanks for the review and for finding some more sources, another pair of eyes is really helpful! That gruyter chapter should help to flesh things out. Mujinga (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Thebiguglyalien! I'll make some time over the next 2-3 days to see how much I can add to the article. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for your patience. Mujinga and I have both added additional content, and I've just rewritten the lead -- I think between the two of us we've definitely broadened the article's overall coverage. Can you take another look and see what you think? Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alanna the Brave & Mujinga, the scope is better than it was before. I think now we can get into a few more specific thoughts:

I'd definitely like to add more, but apart from the language (Marathi), I haven't been able to confirm much other detail. Some articles suggest that Pandit's books have won multiple awards, but there seem to be zero details about these awards (what are they? who awarded them?), and I don't think a vague mention of accolades would add much value. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there's any way to explicitly answer these questions (at least not with the English-language sources I have access to). I do think the information we've already included is a reasonable demonstration of her general level of notability: she's credited as India's first female detective, she's grown her business from one to eight to 30 people (maybe more), and there's been a documentary made about her life. Her career info includes the main breakthrough cases that brought her to the broader public's attention. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something specific you're thinking of? It may just be that I've been staring at these sources for too long, but I'm not seeing anything of substance that hasn't already been added. It's my impression that Pandit doesn't share much about her personal life -- her interviews are all focused on her investigative career/business. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm -- I know the media likes to quote this factoid about Pandit's marital status (same for other single professional women), but personally I'm not sure the info adds any encyclopedic value to the Wikipedia article. She says her reasons for not marrying are because she wants to focus on her work -- but her passion for detective work is already pretty clear from her early life & career info. Being a bachelor is not something we would likely find notable for a male detective, and I would prefer not to feed that media spotlight on women's personal relationships. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree -- I've added a short intro sentence to that section to smooth it out a bit. Better? Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! I've used Google Translate to detect the language, and it seems to be Hindi. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If these are addressed (whether they're incorporated into the article or found to be unactionable due to lack of sources), then I think this article should meet the GA criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alanna the Brave, a few facts that aren't in the article I've found from the first five listed sources:

I'm not saying that all of these warrant inclusion, but many of them probably do. Given that I only looked at a few sources, there are almost certainly more in the others. This article still needs some work before it can be said to broadly cover aspects of its subject other than her career. I also don't see the argument against including her marital status; the vast majority of biographies on Wikipedia mention the nature of their family relationships, and it's certainly more significant to her life than many of the anecdotes and minor details that are currently in the article. Basu (pp.368–369 and pp.370–371) also emphasizes that not marrying was a significant decision regarding her culture and her profession. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thebiguglyalien: First off, I want to say that I do appreciate your thorough review of these different sources. Between the lead rewrite and the content added thus far, I think we've made concrete improvements to the article. I'm feeling a little less convinced about the necessity of some the content additions you've suggested above, and I'd like to have more of a discussion about what this article still needs to meet GA criteria and what are perhaps more optional additions. GA criteria requires that an article "addresses the main aspects of the topic" and "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". The "main aspects" of a topic tend to differ from article to article depending on what the subject is and the weight of the information available -- in Pandit's case, her personal life takes up less space in the available source material than details about her career, and it's acceptable that the Wikipedia article reflects that. A Featured Article review might go further and require a much greater "comprehensiveness" in its coverage (e.g., researching deeper and wider for info, scouring non-English language sources), but that would be beyond the scope of GA. A few other thoughts on the items from the list above:

Personally, I think we've reached (or are extremely close to reaching) the GA bar for broad coverage on Rajani Pandit, as far as credible facts go. If you still feel differently, let's discuss further and zero in on what's key information and what's not. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some good improvements have been made. There are just two key items that I feel have to be included before it can be fairly said to have broad coverage of the main topics. The scope issues I identified in the initial review were "her method, books, public recognition, or 2018 legal troubles". I think the books and the legal troubles have been covered as well as they can be, but the other two need a closer look. First, there are two specific examples of her at work in the article, but there's no general discussion about her actual method. Is her entire job to eavesdrop while disguised as a servant, a mentally ill woman, or something similar? That's the impression that the examples give, but then it also says she has employees and a firm. Second, how did she get famous? Did the "breakthrough" with her murder case instantly propel her to stardom within the detective community? Did her books become bestsellers that brought attention to her work? I'm willing to relegate other aspects to lesser importance, but method and publicity have major gaps that need to be looked at. Even just a sentence for each might fix the issue, but at the moment these are major omissions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: Alrighty -- these two aspects seem like reasonable items to try to flesh out a little (or at least explain more clearly). I'll do another source scan tomorrow and see if I can answer those questions. Alanna the Brave (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: I've incorporated a few additional sentences about Pandit's role/method in her business and the development of her firm's reputation/publicity (possibly as close as we can get to "measuring" fame). I've also edited and reorganized the career section a bit for better clarity and flow. Take another look? Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alanna the Brave & Mujinga, I think all of the essentials are covered. I'll go ahead and mark this as a pass. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we got there, hope to work with both of you again soon! Mujinga (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More