Talk:C. Rajagopalachari/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gbohoadgwwian (talk · contribs) 06:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Undetermined

Result

Result	Notes
Undetermined	The reviewer has left no comments here

Discussion

@TryKid:

• "In this Indian name, the name Chakravarti is a patronymic, not a family name, and the person should be referred to by the given name, Rajagopalachari." is this needed at the top? It pops in Chakravarti when there in no clue what it is. If it is not required to put up something like this at the top please remove it.

• "He died on Christmas Day in 1972 at age 94." Christmas day should be December 25 unless there is a specific correlation. Not every mention of December 25 deserves to be replaced with Christmas day, there should be a good reason to do so.

Gbohoadgwwian I've removed Christmas day and replaced with 25 December. On the hatnote, I think it is appropriate. Many articles have hatnotes like this and it clears up how to address Rajaji. It may not be clear immediately but after the reader reads the first line it should be clear what the note means. Thank you. TryKid (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Indian independence activist" I think activist is not suitable, it should be freedom fighter.

• "Rajaji was instrumental in initiating negotiations between Gandhi and Jinnah" Rajaji popsup suddenly, make it uniform.

• "among nationalists", can this be expanded, who? --Gian ❯❯ Talk 16:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• @TryKid: Can you take this further? --Gian ❯❯ Talk 08:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Status query

It has been over three months since this page was edited, yet I see no edits to address the issues raised by Gian except for replacing Christmas Day with 25 December. (TryKid hasn't edited on Wikipedia since 8 September.) Further, this was an out-of-process nomination: TryKid had not made any significant contributions to the article, yet did not check with those who had to see whether the article was ready to be nominated per the Good Article nomination instructions. If there isn't any action taken by the end of the year, my recommendation would be to close the nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Closing nomination and review

This review has now been open for over 200 days, and hasn't been edited for over half of them. As the reviewer (now known as Jaydayal after a username change in September) has not edited Wikipedia since 22 November, and TryKid has still not resumed editing since last doing so on 8 September, and given the issues mentioned in my post over three weeks ago, I'm declaring this nomination and review abandoned, and closing it as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)