Talk:1985 Gujarat riots/GA1

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Vanamonde93 in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk · contribs) 15:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply


Hi - I'm going to be reviewing this article. Looks like an interesting topic – I'll get into a deep dive now. Thanks. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vanamonde. My approach to reviewing this article will be to run through it step-by-step, making small edits if I see any that are needed, and then assessing the article against GA criteria. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Introduction edit

  • The introduction looks good.

Riots edit

  • Looks good. Do you have any references for the foundation of the All-Gujarat Educational Reform Action Committee
    This is supported by the next citation, Shani p. 80.
  • Just curious. Do you know the name of the commission that regarded the 16 and 23 April as the "darkest period"? It may be beneficial in terms of detail. Was it part of the judicial commission spoken about in the next section?
    It's sometimes referred to as the Dave commission, which is a detail I've now added. I don't want to add it at that point in the text, because I think it would be distracting; the text is discussing something else at that point.

Aftermath edit

  • No problems here.

Images edit

  • Would you be able to find any freely available images/assets? This would satisfy 6a and b of the GA criteria.
    I've added one more image, of the old city of Ahmedabad; images are generally very difficult, though, because a) most images from this period haven't been digitized, b) those that have been (in newspaper archives, for instance) are copyright and/or lacking in documentation, and making an argument to use a copyrighted image is always tricky. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Agreed. The image there should be fine.

GA criteria edit

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  }
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):  
    b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  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):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·