Talk:Choor Singh/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. However, there is something wrong with the citation links. I get a cite error message http://www.webcitation.org/5fn4qxiFI. I will give you some time to fix these before I review the aritlce. Meanwhile, I will put the article on hold.

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• An explanation for the webcite problem was given in the recent Signpost, that webcite was working to fix the problem. It also provided a link [1], explaining that meanwhile users should not attempt to fix the broken links. The problem is being addressed. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• The problem with web citation has been fixed! So I will start the review.
• Was he always referred to as "Choor Singh" and never by his last name, Singh?
  • Comment: The usage seems to be inconsistent – compare, for example, [2] (uses "Choor Singh") with [3]. — JackLee, 16:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've decided to use "Choor Singh" at the beginning of each section, and "Singh" thereafter. — JackLee, 07:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Lead

The Lead is very compact and does cover the article. But I wonder if you could include more paragraphs by having roughly a paragraph for each section?

You have "writer of books about Sikhism" and "wrote several books on Sikhism" in the same paragraph

OK, fixed. — JackLee, 04:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Childhood, education and early career

"He completed his secondary education and took the Senior Cambridge examination at Raffles Institution in the top class" - what does "in the top class" mean?

Comment: This is not entirely clear from the source. I think it means that students were arranged in classes by their academic abilities, and he was in the class for the brightest students. But without more information I do not think I should rephrase this. — JackLee, 16:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"he could not be called to the Bar as a barrister as he did not have time to keep the required dining terms" - what are "required dining terms"?

"to dine at Gray's Inn" - does this mean to study there?

"After making four trips in two years" - I don't understand the significance of this - trips to?

Comment: This refers to the traditional requirement for English barristers to attend dinners a certain number of times at their Inn before they may be called to the Bar – see "Barristers in England and Wales#Education and training". — JackLee, 16:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• The article is well written and well referred. It certainly contains a lot of information. The "Later years" section is somewhat easier to read than the other sections. I know this is a vague request, but I wonder if you could try to shorten some of the long sentences, as many of them contain quite a bit of information in just one sentence. I am thinking of the "Childhood, education and early career" and "Judicial career" sections. Could the "Judicial career" section be more than one paragraph?

Fixed. — JackLee, 07:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe there should be a separate section on his writing, describing the topics a bit more.

Comment: I don't really feel qualified to comment on Singh's writings on Sikhism, but for what it's worth I've added a short sentence from the foreword on one of his books. — JackLee, 07:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm currently out of the country and so do not have access to offline resources such as Choor Singh's books about Sikhism, so major tweaking of the article will have to wait till I'm back at the end of the week. Hope this is all right. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Both editors have been reminded that this review has been inactive for two months. If there are only minor fixes needed to get this article passed, I'd be happy to help- just let me know. --Edge3 (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I've been quite busy with work and travel. I've now reviewed the article and made changes, which I hope take most of Mattisse's suggestions into account. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Clearly and precisely written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers important areas b (focused): Remains focused on topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass

• A very nice article about an interesting man. Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 13:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)