stringtranslate.com

Talk:Lalita Tademy

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Lalita Tademy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SafariScribe (talk · contribs) 17:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 19:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! I'm Pbritti, an editor with a content background of primarily Christianity and architectural subjects. SafariScribe, your article looks promising considering the breadth of sourcing; I hope to work with you to improve it. I noticed that this would only be your second GA, so I want to offer whatever support I can! Please ping me here or on my talk page as necessary! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

The following comments are from my initial read of the article and are by no means comprehensive. Some comments are more directly related to the GA criteria than others, but each will pertain to an improve I believe should be made to the article. More in-depth reviewing will follow. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall initial impression: There are some substantial issues. The most pressing is that I think that depth of coverage present in this article doesn't adequately cover the subject according to GA criteria standards. Additionally, there are some fairly substantial MOS issues; I'm prone to typos and I understand how frustrating they can be, so please bear with me as we work together to resolve them. In general, I think we could make a GA here, but we need to fairly substantially expand the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti, thanks again. Who am I not to bear anything? This was one of my first GANs. I tried once to withdraw it, but on a second thought, Wikipedia isn't perfect either. As I bear with you, know that there can be minor mistakes, and I want you to take your time too and do your best as you always have done per you contributions. I also agree that the article is short; in regards too, there are short GAs. For me, it can reach GA status when we keep working on it. Thanks for picking this up and don't be worried. If there is any error, drop it, and I'll work on it. Regards! — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe: This reply does you immense credit! Thank you for your patience and openness to cooperation. By the way, I noticed you're somewhat new to editing on this account more generally. All I can say is that I'm impressed with your work thus far! Keep it up! I'll be on more soon with additional comments and suggestions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pbritti, Yes, I am relatively a new editor though I read Wikipedia often. In a nutshell, looking my upper comment, there are some errors though not noticable. These are typical errors one observes amidst typing fast. It's well! — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of content expansions needed

The following is a list of content expansions required for this article to attain GA status through comprehensive coverage. I must admit that the purpose of this list is to indicate that this article is unlikely to pass as a GA at this time but that it can absolutely stand at GAN again. If you believe that you can accomplish the expansion by the end of this week (let's say 00:00 on 21 April for the sake of establishing a deadline), then please make that effort and I'll perform a review then.

Please ping me if you feel you can accomplish all this by Sunday. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: I plan on closing this GAN if you are unable to respond or resolve the issues on the article between now and 00:00 UTC Sunday. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pbritti, I am already editing the article. I will round off before tomorrow. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pbritti, I have edited the article to standard. I will now allow you review the article. The sources have their Google book links for verification, while some are PDFs. I'll try to expand more whenever you mention so. Thanks for picking this up and have a wonderful day. Thanks! — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's still not up to standard, though I know it needs more attribution. Let me know or leave the review to Monday. This is an appeal. Thanks and can be verified by my edits so far. Thanks. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article has come a long way over the last week. Unfortunately, though, it retains a great number of minor factual issues, major MOS issues, and a deficiency in sourcing corresponding with content. I encourage you to resubmit this article to GAN after some more cleaning has been done. Do not be discouraged, as you have clearly demonstrated an exceptional ability to embrace criticism and improve Wikipedia. If you resubmit this for review, I'd love to look at it again. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.