Wikipedia:Peer review/Bodh Gaya bombings/archive1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Bhooshannpy (talk | contribs) |
2pennygoat (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Please do not use level 1-3 section headings or horizontal rules in this peer review. Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics, and do not paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead. Peer review pages should not be moved. |
Please do not use level 1-3 section headings or horizontal rules in this peer review. Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics, and do not paste in semi-automated peer reviews below: link to them instead. Peer review pages should not be moved. |
||
--> |
--> |
||
'''This peer review discussion has been closed.'''<br/> <noinclude>[[Category:November 2013 peer reviews]]</noinclude> |
|||
{{Peer review page|topic=socsci}} |
|||
I've listed this article for peer review because.I want to improve its quality to GA status. |
I've listed this article for peer review because.I want to improve its quality to GA status. |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
::::Hello! I have no further comments other than recommending you nominate this for good article status ([[WP:GA?]]). To do this, you can follow the instructions here ([[WP:GAN/I]]). Any problems with the article can be worked out during the thorough GA process. I wish you all the best! [[User:LT910001|LT910001]] ([[User talk:LT910001|talk]]) 09:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC) |
::::Hello! I have no further comments other than recommending you nominate this for good article status ([[WP:GA?]]). To do this, you can follow the instructions here ([[WP:GAN/I]]). Any problems with the article can be worked out during the thorough GA process. I wish you all the best! [[User:LT910001|LT910001]] ([[User talk:LT910001|talk]]) 09:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::::Dear {{ping|LT910001}}, Many thanks for your comments.-----[[User:Bhooshannpy|Bhooshan NPY]] ([[User talk:Bhooshannpy|talk]]) 11:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC) |
:::::Dear {{ping|LT910001}}, Many thanks for your comments.-----[[User:Bhooshannpy|Bhooshan NPY]] ([[User talk:Bhooshannpy|talk]]) 11:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
:: The article does not qualify for a GA class review, a lot of work needs to be put for it to be considered as a GA. The citations are up-to-date and I haven't found any deadlinks so far. But the article is not broad in its coverage and some sections does not present a [[NPOV]]. Please go through [[Wikipedia:How to write a great article]] before you nominate it for a GA. [[User:2pennygoat|2pennygoat]] ([[User talk:2pennygoat|talk]]) 18:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 18:52, 24 November 2013
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because.I want to improve its quality to GA status.
Thanks, Bhooshan NPY (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hello, with the exception of a few copy-edits (e.g. quotations marks that are not closed, capitalised 'police') this article is quite readable. There are some sentences (for example the bomb blasts' descriptions) that can be found elsewhere on the internet, so it would be good to know if they have been copied from here or from other websites. This article is otherwise quite well-cited, and there are no problems with images. I would encourage you to nominate for GA and deal with any small issues that arise in the context of the nomination. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Dear @LT910001:, Your feedback is very much helpful. I have edited the changes suggested by you. Can you please let me know if I have missed anything? Many thanks.----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Dear @LT910001:, Do you have any comments now? Many thanks.-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! I have no further comments other than recommending you nominate this for good article status (WP:GA?). To do this, you can follow the instructions here (WP:GAN/I). Any problems with the article can be worked out during the thorough GA process. I wish you all the best! LT910001 (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Dear @LT910001:, Many thanks for your comments.-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hello! I have no further comments other than recommending you nominate this for good article status (WP:GA?). To do this, you can follow the instructions here (WP:GAN/I). Any problems with the article can be worked out during the thorough GA process. I wish you all the best! LT910001 (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Dear @LT910001:, Do you have any comments now? Many thanks.-----Bhooshan NPY (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- The article does not qualify for a GA class review, a lot of work needs to be put for it to be considered as a GA. The citations are up-to-date and I haven't found any deadlinks so far. But the article is not broad in its coverage and some sections does not present a NPOV. Please go through Wikipedia:How to write a great article before you nominate it for a GA. 2pennygoat (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)