This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Agam Kuan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Agam Kuan was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 19, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) 12:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments
That's enough for now, plenty to do, on hold for a few days. The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Further
The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, I'm having a hard time trying to pass this as a GA. The English is still poor, repetitive and ungrammatical. Unless you can find a sympathetic natural English-speaking copyeditor, I'm going to have to fail it. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:57, 28 July 2015
I agree with The Rambling Man, while this is a useful guide to the well, the prose is not clear enough for GA. Sometimes it is difficult to parse the meaning, so I'm not sure a copyedit by itself would work. I think it needs the topic to be researched and written up in clear prose. The article also need more work in general to meet all the GA criteria. The lead doesn't meet WP:Lead as it doesn't summarise the article. There are very short sections. There is a photo of statues found near Agam Kuan in 1895, but this is not explained in the text body. This is a basic article, informative to a degree, but perhaps not quite enough information to inform the general reader per the "broad coverage" criteria. The Architecture section does not provide encyclopedic information about the architecture, merely a basic description - perhaps Architecture is an inappropriate title? There is a fair amount of work to be done here to meet all the GA criteria. There has been some progress over the past month, so there has been some benefit from this review; I feel this GAN has reached its conclusion. The article now needs a sustained period of consolidation, perhaps getting more editors involved in building it up, and then nominating again when the work has been done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Agam Kuan. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Agam Kuan. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
is this historical or legendary, the article states its legendary, if sources verify for instance ashoka's edict and chinese buddhist travelers accounts, then it must be historical. is it legendary based on archaeology because none of the discussion has been made in the article how its legendary it infact tries to prove its historical, regards. 175.137.72.188 ( talk) 12:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I have located a dangling ref and hidden it, replacing each with a citation needed tag. This has been done because we have a reference pointing to a sources that is not recorded in the article. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance fixing this. - Aussie Article Writer ( talk)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Agam Kuan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Agam Kuan was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 19, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: The Rambling Man ( talk · contribs) 12:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments
That's enough for now, plenty to do, on hold for a few days. The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Further
The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm really sorry, I'm having a hard time trying to pass this as a GA. The English is still poor, repetitive and ungrammatical. Unless you can find a sympathetic natural English-speaking copyeditor, I'm going to have to fail it. The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:57, 28 July 2015
I agree with The Rambling Man, while this is a useful guide to the well, the prose is not clear enough for GA. Sometimes it is difficult to parse the meaning, so I'm not sure a copyedit by itself would work. I think it needs the topic to be researched and written up in clear prose. The article also need more work in general to meet all the GA criteria. The lead doesn't meet WP:Lead as it doesn't summarise the article. There are very short sections. There is a photo of statues found near Agam Kuan in 1895, but this is not explained in the text body. This is a basic article, informative to a degree, but perhaps not quite enough information to inform the general reader per the "broad coverage" criteria. The Architecture section does not provide encyclopedic information about the architecture, merely a basic description - perhaps Architecture is an inappropriate title? There is a fair amount of work to be done here to meet all the GA criteria. There has been some progress over the past month, so there has been some benefit from this review; I feel this GAN has reached its conclusion. The article now needs a sustained period of consolidation, perhaps getting more editors involved in building it up, and then nominating again when the work has been done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Agam Kuan. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Agam Kuan. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
is this historical or legendary, the article states its legendary, if sources verify for instance ashoka's edict and chinese buddhist travelers accounts, then it must be historical. is it legendary based on archaeology because none of the discussion has been made in the article how its legendary it infact tries to prove its historical, regards. 175.137.72.188 ( talk) 12:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I have located a dangling ref and hidden it, replacing each with a citation needed tag. This has been done because we have a reference pointing to a sources that is not recorded in the article. Please feel free to contact me if you need assistance fixing this. - Aussie Article Writer ( talk)