Talk:Indian National Congress campaign for the 2014 Indian general election/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take this review and will mainly focus on copyediting issues. It seems to be a well written article so there would be few points to make. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• The lead could be better organised; try splitting it into two paragraphs, with the second paragraph expanding more on the party's history?

• Lead has been expanded.

• The are fifteen references for Indian National Congress in the Candidates section! No problem of course, but it seems a lot

• The sources talk about the seat distribution between INC and all its allies, so they should be included.

• In the Advertisement section, I was thinking that the citations could be more spread out instead of all four citations at the end of the paragraph

• Done

• "Senior leaders of the party blamed Dentsu for its defeat in the elections" - why was this?

• They needed someone to lay the blame on, so they chose Dentsu.

References

• The toolserver says that there a few broken links

• Corrected

• Ref 46 is dead

• Replaced

• Ref 76 redirects to another page, but this could just be me?

• An archivelink has been added.

• The article is well referenced and all the citations are in the correct places, so that part meets the GA criteria. The publishers and authors are all correct too

On hold

The prose of this article is very good, it is also well referenced and comprehensive. The only minor problems standing in the way now are a few referencing issues and the summary of the lead could definitely be improved (for an article this size the lead is disproportionate). If all of the above are addressed this article should have no problem passing the GAN, I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days. Thanks! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Jaguar: I hope my recent edits to the article have addressed the above issues. Further comments on the article are always welcome. Thanks for the review.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thanks for addressing them, Skr15081997! Yep the article now meets the GA criteria as everything has been dealt with. Best, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)