Talk:2013 Bodh Gaya bombings

edit request

police says totally 10 bombs exploded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.46.49 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 8 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Add response from leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.46.135 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 8 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Islamists and Maoists? That makes sense...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.188.176 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 9 July 2013‎ (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 14:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominator: Bhooshannpy at 10:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I will be doing this review, since it's my first...I'll be assisted by a veteran user and may take some time. Hope that's okay, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ugog Nizdast, Great to hear from you ! Please go ahead. Many thanks-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Criteria 3A, 3B, 1B (see the list below): I think the major aspect which needs to be improved first is the section arrangement and the excess content. Once that is done...I'll be able to highlight the rest, which will be simple and can be resolved quickly; then this article can be promoted. A good article which you can refer to for ideas would be 2008 Mumbai attacks (this is the old reviewed version, check even the latest or other similar articles at WP:GA and WP:FA if needed).
• The article can be rearranged in the following order:
  • A "Background" section could be made mentioning the description of the place (summarise this from the main articles Bodh Gaya and Mahabodhi Temple) and situation at that time (of the security etc). You could also add links to them below the section title by putting {{See also|Bodh Gaya|Mahabodhi Temple}}.
  • Section "Bombing" can be trimmed down to only where and when the bombs were placed. The rest of the content can be moved to the next section. Could you clarify whether there were ten or nine blasts? Since the content has been updated as the reports came out, the article too reads like that with it first saying "nine blasts"...then "Shinde reported ten" and finally saying "tenth was at an unknown location".
  • "Effects" (think of a better name), move all the content pertaining to the damage, injuries and the events which occurred later, to this section.
  • "Initial reactions": The current "Perpetrators" section needs to be removed, all it contains is the initial speculations of various politicians. I say you portray this to the minimum and give it WP:DUE weight accordingly. Make it a shorter para explaining x politician made a allegation, y made...so on. Then of course, put the content about the debate about lack of security and them not heeding the previous warnings.
  • "Investigation": The content is fine right now and I'll go further into this later.
  • "Aftermath" where you can put all the important reactions. This again, can be toned down, we don't need to write what everybody said. You can quote what important figures said and for the others write "Persons X, Y, Z also condemned the attack".

You don't have to go strictly according to what I've proposed above, it's just an outline on how to rearrange the content, do make your own changes as you see fit. I'm putting this review 'on hold' for seven days, if that is not enough please let me know and I'll extend it. I'm watching this article and page, also will make minor edits if needed. Once you finish or have any questions...tell me so that we can proceed. If you feel that you won't be able to do this within time for any reason, I can close this and you can always make these changes whenever you can so that you can renominate it later; I'll be happy to review it again. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• (more to come once the above are addressed)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Article seems to be sourced well but needs to be re-done in terms of section arrangement and content trimming, only then I can check the remaining 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:

   On hold for seven days till the above issues are cleared. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

   Failed: A week has passed and since there has not been any activity, I cannot pass this. When there is time and the above issues are addressed, it can be renominated...I would be happy to review it again. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)