Talk:Hajipur/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 05:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hello ItsSkV08, I'll be reviewing this nomination and present the review shortly. I hope my feedback will be helpful to you. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  ItsSkV08, this is far from a good article and has major problems. I have still done a complete review to help you understand what's wrong with it. It has problems with the sources used, original research, it's incomplete and it has copyright violations. See the comments below and the assessment table for details. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  I can see that you are new contributor, so i would suggest reading through Wikipedia's policies and taking the comments as an example for what kind of sources are unreliable. I hope this review gives you an idea of what's needed for a good article, if you were to try to promote an article at a later date. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• History is incomplete, a place which can be traced back to Mahabharata needs a much more detailed history section than three short paragraphs.
• Demographics is incomplete. The religion data is unsourced and the two charts need to have corresponding text in the article.
• Economy is incomplete. It is entirely sourced for primary government data and announcements, needs secondary sources and more details on other aspects beyond EPIP.
• Art, culture and tourism is incomplete, it's only a list of sites. There is no text on arts or culture.
• The sections from Education to Sports and recreation are all just lists with near no other information. It also does not follow the MOS:LIST.
• There are problems with a lot of sources, most of them are unreliable. I've listed out the sources below.
  • The 1889 book on History of India is too old to be used, there a WikiProject India prohibition on the use of Raj era sources.
  • hajipuronline.in is a commercial service provider and most of its material is just promotion for its clients.
  • buddhist-temples.com is a blog.
  • Popular Prakashan is a self publishing service.
  • populstat.info is another self published source.
  • Website about pages such a Ramachura Mandir homepage, BSNL homepage, etc are not independent sources.
  • Some of the sources also don't link anywhere, for example the Jagran source links to their home page. Bhaskar or Hindustan are also preferable over Jagran, the latter doesn't distinguish sponsored and non-sponsored posts.
  • indiarailinfo.com is also a self published source.
  • generalknowledgequizblog.com is a blog.
• There are unsourced lines and examples of original research where sources are synthesised to make statements which are not directly supported by a source. There is also an over-reliance on primary sources among the reliable ones such as government data repositories. These need to be replaced with secondary sources such as academic journals or books, or at least reliable news organisations.
• There are copyright violations in the article, see Earwig's copyvio detector. Likely needs cleanup. Some of the images appear suspect to me as well.

Assessment

1. Comprehension:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The comprehension is alright.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The article has manual of style issues.	Fail

2. Verifiability:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	There are references, but formatting needs improvement.	Neutral
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	There are many unreliable and questionable sources in the article.	Fail
(c) (original research)	Original research is present in the article.	Fail
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Copyvio cleanup is required.	Fail

3. Comprehensiveness:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article is incomplete.	Fail
(b) (focused)	The article is focused without unnecessary deviations.	Pass

4. Neutrality:

Notes	Result
No neutrality issues were found.	Pass

5. Stability:

Notes	Result
No edit warring, major changes or content disputes.	Pass

6. Illustration:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Images have possible copyright violations.	Don't know
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	No issues with captions.	Pass