Talk:Pranab Mukherjee/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs) 16:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... Not a quick fail though this time. →TSU ^tp* 16:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Has it been nominated before? I could not see any archive page.Regards, theTigerKing  16:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not talking about the article. My recent reviews echo stories of quick fails. Glad to find a credible GA. →TSU ^tp* 16:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Alas, in my opinion, it is unstable (eg: there is a substantial content dispute going on) and therefore should indeed be a quick fail. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I just came across it. Also issues in the prose exists. Refs are also needed as well as some info is missing. The Tiger, I'm sorry but I'll fail it after leaving the issues here in details. →TSU ^tp* 16:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the edit war is over after the section on controversy was put up in the article. I had given a thought to it before nominating the article for GA. The controversy section debate would die out in a day or two(maximum), if it hasn't. I would rather advise you to wait for two days. If you still find an edit war happening, make it a case of a quick-fail. Regards, theTigerKing  17:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The article has been on my watchlist since the nomination process and I'd say that this is definitely a quickfail on the stability criteria. There are also portions that are unreferenced and more importantly, a section on "Presidential Career" that has lasted the last thirteen hours. It's clearly not ready for a GA review yet. —SpacemanSpiff 19:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I would request everyone to be more specific. What exactly in prose, stability et al. Please provide pointers to the unreferenced sections. Please take out time and start penning down the suggestions or issues involved with the article. It may be quick-failed now but your suggestions would be useful in the future.Regards, theTigerKing  19:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Just watch me over the next few days and you'll learn: the problems really are numerous and in some cases severe. Query any of my edits that you do not understand. I am sure that others will contribute also. This was far, far too hasty a nomination and, to be honest, you are looking at a minimum of 3 or 4 months before this is likely to go any further. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've always admired Sitush's judgement and this is also one of it. Though I disagree that the problems can be addressed in 3-4 months. Problems here can be fixed within 1-2 months max if actively participated (I've done it at a worse article then this so saying). Anyways, here are few problems which I can see other then a rushed nomination

• Too less information of our president. There are lot more things that can be added in the article. This can even probably be expanded 2 folds then the existing state (that means that double the info can be added).
• Offices held - I don't think that we keep any information just like this. This should completely be removed and should be added to his career and few in the infobox
• Professional career, Political career, Government offices and Presidential career this all should be in one section Career with properly writing chronologically.
• Political party role (pretty odd title) - change the title as well as is there any need of that chart in the section? Not at all!
• Personal life should come after early life then career
• too less info about Early, personal life, and career.
• There are so many stories regarding him and about positions held and problems about his role in Congress as well as govt and career which isn't in the article.
• The prose- it is in an extremely bad state. It needs throughout copyediting
• 43 refs don't constitute enough info about a person who is a President
• I haven't took a close look and this is just a quick overview which is enough to fail it.

My personal life refrains me from getting active on wiki now, otherwise I'd myself fix all this in some weeks. But anyhow, if this doesn't get to GA till October, I've good 2 months of activeness after October. Till then, I trust editors that they will significantly improve the article. There are many other issues (I mean too many) which I haven't stated. So far, good work but a lot of things are to be done. Sorry, but this is a quick fail. Take Barack Obama as an example and do the best! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on most of your points but for your suggestion that official information, being too lengthy, should be kept separate. Readers may just want to go through the infobox rather than reading it completely. Agreed with your point that there could be duplicacy because of it. But it could be suitably written to prevent it. Because, many editors were working on the article, a slow GA Review process would have helped all of us to be partners in writing a good article at the earliest. The article needs to be promoted to GA status, if not FA Regards, theTigerKing  16:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)