Talk:C. Rajagopalachari/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: None found

Linkrot: Fixed one dead link, tagged one other, added access dates using WikiBlame.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Frankly the prose is poor. Whilst mostly grammatically correct, it reads as a series of disconnected sentences mostly starting "He..." or "Rajagopalachari...". Consider a thorough copy-edit by a third party to make the prose flow better, with more structure. Recommend reading Wikipedia:Writing better articles

   Consistency, we had instances of both "Rajaji" and "Rajagopalachari" being used to refer to the subject. The longer form is preferable, but as mentioned above you need to consider the overal prose flow - at the moemnt it is jerky and chopy throughout. Try reading it out loud. Whilst on the subject of consistency, why is the article named C. Rajagopalachari rather than Chakravarti Rajagopalachari?

   Rajagopalachari issued the Temple Entry Authorization and Indemnity Act 1939@@ Issued? Same fault a line or two further down.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Consistency, sometimes the book title is used in the citation, sometimes the author. Better to stick to the author (and date if the more than one of the authors' works are cited).

   There are two entries for Ralhan, O. P. (2002). Encyclopaedia of Political Parties. Anmol Publications PVT. LTD. ISBN 8174888659, ISBN 9788174888655. withe same ISBN. Why are two ISBNS (long and short) quoted on most of the books?

   Consistency - Author names, Family name first, given name second.

   References that I can access confirm stated facts.

   ONe dead link found and tagged.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Many phrase need better explanation. the eradr may no know much about Indian culture. Sentences such as:

   He pioneered temperance and temple entry movements in India and advocated Dalit upliftment. may require further explanation. What is a a "temple entry movement", what is "Dalit upliftment". Wikilinks alone do not explain. The background needs to be obvious in the article itself.

   His first major breakthrough as a leader was the 1922 Gaya session of the Indian National Congress What is the "the 1922 Gaya session"?

   What was "Gandhi's Wardha scheme"?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   As far as I can ascertain

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):

   The two faded yellow newspaper clippings could be sharpennd up and made more vsible in a graphic editing program -m at the moment they have very little discrenible content.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am going to fail this now as there is rather a lot of work to be done. Suggest you take this to peer review before renominating at GAN. Please remember that GAn is not a substitute for peer review. Articles brought here should be ready and checked against the criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)