From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article (
|
visual edit |
history ) ·
Article talk (
|
history ) ·
Watch
Reviewer:
MJL (
talk ·
contribs )
23:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
Is it well written ?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
You're missing a few
full stops . Run through the whole thing and please add them as needed.
B. It complies with the
manual of style guidelines for
lead sections ,
layout ,
words to watch ,
fiction , and
list incorporation :
See
below.
Is it
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. All
in-line citations are from
reliable sources , including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or
likely to be challenged , and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the
scientific citation guidelines :
C. It contains
no original research :
D. It contains no
copyright violations nor
plagiarism :
Earwig gave a false positive, but it's good. I would just be careful more and make sure you add quote marks when you are directly quoting something in the bill.
Is it broad in its coverage ?
A. It addresses the
main aspects of the topic:
The article is certainly on the shorter side. However, this seems to be because there really are only three aspects to the topic: the background, the bill's provision, and the criticism of it. There's no doubt that to me that this meets the broad in its coverage criteria of GA, but this might be a significant barrier if the article were to try to make it to Featured class.
B. It stays
focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see
summary style ):
Is it
neutral ?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
There's some minor language cleanup that needs to happen for this phrase: amidst chaos in the house over
Is it stable ?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by
images ?
A. Images are
tagged with their
copyright status , and
valid fair use rationales are provided for
non-free content :
B. Images are
relevant to the topic, and have
suitable captions :
You might consider using
File:Hijra Indian entertainers (c. 1865).jpeg instead of
File:Hijra and companions in Eastern Bengal.jpg since the latter is already found in two other places on English Wikipedia, but that's your call. You may also consider uploading the text of the bill to commons and link feature it like I did
here .
Overall :
Pass or Fail:
Please fix the remaining issues, and you should be all set. 23:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
MOS issues
I'm just going to list them here. Feel free to just cross them out using <s></s>
as you address them.
Law Ministry is capitalized but doesn't link to anything. If it is a proper noun, then please link to the primary topic, but otherwise I think that it probably needs to be lowercase per
MOS:INSTITUTIONS .
The first instance where
Rajya Sabha comes up should be linked (
MOS:BTW ), but it should be linked once in the lead per
MOS:REPEATLINK . Same thing goes for the term
President of India .
District Magistrate should be replaced with district magistrate . The following terms should be lowercase as well:
District Screening Committee
Opposition
Expert Committee
Standing Committee
Per
WP:ELPOINTS , links should never be found in the articles prose. On
5 December 2019 it was signed into law by the
President of India .
National Council for Transgender Persons can bolded if you want per
MOS:BOLDSYN (I redirected it to the page). Strictly optional, though.
Regards, –
MJL
‐Talk ‐
☖
23:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
reply
Closing
Had to close this per
this . –
MJL
‐Talk ‐
☖
02:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
reply