Talk:Anini
 | Anini was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Untitled
editThe picture showing where Anini is located is wrong and up at the top, where it says the coordinates, it is just a jumbled mess. --KRajaratnam1 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. KRajaratnam1 (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Anini/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: – Quadell (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:KRajaratnam1
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The article has frequent prose problems. There are sentence fragments and awkward phrasing throughout. I would recommend getting someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to copyedit the article for smoother reading. |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), the lede should summarize all important aspects of the article. This lede is insufficient. There are other problems as well. There are lists that should be incorporated into prose. Words are bolded which should not be. Nearly every section is a single paragraph, indicating that either more information should be added or the organization should be made more general. |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | References are not consistently formatted. (Some have ISBNs and some do not, some have page numbers and some do not, etc.) Also, references such as "Google Maps", "Google Earth", and "Maps of India" are not sufficient. |
|
|
2b. 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). | Many sections have sourcing which is fine. But there are several important unsourced statements in History, Earthquakes, Demographics, and others. The Airports section gives an unsourced opinion. The Protests of neglect section has direct quotes that are unsourced. |
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Many of the unsourced statements could be original research, or could not be. I can't tell with the current sourcing. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The are many sections where more information is needed. I think that Geography and Demographics are fine, even though they are short. But the History section really needs more information. Other sections could certainly use more information, if the sources provide it. |
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Not a problem. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Not a problem. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Not a problem. |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Were you the photographer for File:Anini.jpg? The image description says "No rights reserved", but it also says that the image is released under a limited license that reserves some rights. Which is correct?
More importantly, were you actually the photographer for File:41 - Rajesh Tacho MLA (41 - Anini).jpg? |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | As a minor issue, captions should not end in a period unless they are complete sentences. But besides that nitpick, the captions are all suitable and the choice and placement are good. |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Does not pass GA requirements at this time. Feel free to improve the article based on these suggestions and renominate, though it would probably be a good idea to submit the article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors first. – Quadell (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC) |
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
District headquarters
editThe lead of this article states that Anini is "the headquarters of the Dibang Valley district" and "was also the district headquarters of the undivided Dibang Valley district". What is the distinction between a district and an undivided district"? Folklore1 (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Alternative names
editGoogle Maps identified a point along the river southwest of Anini as the location for Ilupu. Is Ilupu indeed an alternative name for Anini? Should Ilupu be removed from the list of alternative names? Folklore1 (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Anini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721172210/http://mohfw-h1n1.nic.in/ArunachalPradesh.html to http://mohfw-h1n1.nic.in/ArunachalPradesh.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721163212/http://arun-aviation.nic.in/schedule_dauphin.htm to http://arun-aviation.nic.in/schedule_dauphin.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)