Talk:Lakshadweep/GA2

GA Review

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

Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 15:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ajay Platinum (talk · contribs) 17:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article. Feel free to push back against anything you disagree with - very few, if any, of the things I'll mention will individually be worth a GA fail on their own. Any changes too minor to bother you with, I'll just do directly in the article - but feel free to revert or question any of those as well.

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Barring minor punctuation and grammatical issues, the article reads well. I have corrected most minor issues during my review. I have some notes/suggestions:
   (1) A single line of thought for each sentence. For instance, when listing the three island sub-groups, adding their geographic separators may be confusing. You can use parentheses or a new sentence to break up the information.
   (2) Consistent spelling and punctuation. I understand that words in a non-English script can be difficult to anglicize, especially those without a standard. Try sticking to a single spelling (for instance, Kolathiri vs. Kolattiri). Consistency in the usage of an Oxford comma and the British vs. American spellings is required.
   (3) Maintain the flow of thought by placing similar content together. For example, when talking about the tuna fishing industry, follow it up with the tuna canning centre run by the government, and then move on to the types of boats used for general fishing.
   (4) The introduction is verbose. As our aim with the lead is to summarize the article, perhaps you could shorten the text on the location, geography, and history.

   Appreciate your comments and efforts aimed at correcting these. Broadly agree with your first three comments. Regarding the lead, while four paragraphs are the norm, I do agree that some things can be trimmed such as the history part. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

   Thank you for summarizing the lead. This criteria was an easy pass because of the effort you've put in. Ajay Platinum (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
   
   

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Statements are backed by government/authoritative sources and cited inline. no original research visible and Earwig does not indicate copyvio issues. Spot-check shows some URLs are broken/unsecure. Some pages appear to be broken or have permanently moved, so not much we can do there. Please let me know once you've gone through this list of problematic sources and whether you can fix any. I'm setting the status to hold until then.
   
   2 (broken link; please check if [1] is the intended source and replace if correct), 23 (unsecure URL, correct archive), 28 (unsecure URL), 30 (unsecure URL), 42 (URL does not exist, correct archive), 44 (URL only to Marine Mammals homepage, archive unrelated to citation), 45 (URL only to Marine Mammals homepage, archive unrelated to citation), 48 (unsecure URL), 57 (URL does not exist, correct archive), 65 (URL does not exist, correct archive), 67 (URL does not exist, correct archive), 68 (unsecure URL), 74 (URL does not exist, correct archive), 89 (URL does not exist, correct archive), 94 (URL does not exist, correct archive), 95 (URL does not exist, correct archive).

   @Ajay Platinum, my reverts on the links below:

   • 2, 28, 30, 57, 65, 67, 68, 74, 94, 95 - fixed
   • 23, 42, 44, 45, 89 - permanently broken, archives are available for the links
   • 48 - official source, secure archive provided

   Do let me know in case of further clarification. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

   Appreciate the quick response and for fixing the links. I'm updating the status of this GA criteria to pass. Ajay Platinum (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
   
   

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article covers major aspects of the subject and each section is focused. The introduction has been edited by the nominator to be more concise.
   
   

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral tone and unbiased content. Sticks to the facts and does not jump to conclusions. Well written.
   
   

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   On hold because user:Tera Ranjit Punjabi and 2 anonymous IPs have forcefully reverted incorrect edits to this article in the last month (October 2024), and were on the verge of violating the WP:3RR rule. While there is no edit war as per the Wiki definition, I recommend waiting an additional 7 days to confirm that this article is stable. If all is well, the status shall be changed to Pass.

   Update: Status changed to pass after monitoring the page for seven days.
   
   

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images have appropriate tags, are free-use (from Commons), and the captions are suitable. Good selection of images to showcase the biodiversity.
   
   

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article passes the GA criteria. The references section has been reviewed by the nominator and vandalism has not occurred in the past seven days.

Ajay Platinum (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)