Talk:History of Mumbai/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting GA review.Pyrotec (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My plan is to do an initial review and to follow it up with a more detailed GA review to check references and sources, etc. Some of the grammar is a bit stilted in the WP:lead but that should not be too hard to fix. What does worry me, at the start, is the number of WP:red links in the Islamic and Portuguese periods. These may result in the article going On Hold. I mention this at the start of the GA review, so that it can be considered now.Pyrotec (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed all Over-red linking of Portuguese officers etc.... Kensplanet^Talk_{Contributions} 04:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the red link removal. Most of them would have been notable leaders of the sixteenth century. Removing it would lend a sense of systemic bias that favours recentism over historical figures. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually my decision. The GA reviewer has told that the article may go on Hold if the articles are not created. Kensplanet^T_C 11:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations, I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)