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.
Hello, I will be reviewing this article according to the GA criteria (planning to be done within a week). This review is a part of the
August 2023 GAN drive.
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
Refs are listed properly. Some issues inline, however:
Book and magazine citations (eg. 8-10) need dates, page numbers and authors/publishers in the rights params if available.
Web references: Some (eg. 18 and 19) should use the website name instead of a url, also ref 3 needs to be formatted to have the source name in the website parameter instead of in the author and title parameters (remove unneeded, bot generated pipe portion)
B.
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):
I don't think having images or not would be a deal-breaker. However, I would recommend adding a fair use image of da Cunha and the Amul girl in the Career section if you want to put some in.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
@
Ktin: Are you planning to look at this soon? Not to pressure you, just want to know for the drive/if I need to put the review on hold.
@
Ktin: Hi, sorry for the long delay. I should br able to restart this review next week, if you like.
@
Ktin: Alright, I'm just going to close this because its been a long time and we've both not been active enough to maintain this nomination.
MSG17 (
talk)
19:22, 20 October 2023 (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.
@
MSG17: not sure how this one fell of my tracking list as I spent most of my time off-wiki in the last few months. I have made the edits -- please can you have a look at your convenience.
Ktin (
talk)
23:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Ktin: No worries, I've been pretty busy too and let this review slip as well. If you want, I will evaluate the page again if you renominate it.
MSG17 (
talk)
12:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
Hello, I will be reviewing this article according to the GA criteria (planning to be done within a week). This review is a part of the
August 2023 GAN drive.
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
Refs are listed properly. Some issues inline, however:
Book and magazine citations (eg. 8-10) need dates, page numbers and authors/publishers in the rights params if available.
Web references: Some (eg. 18 and 19) should use the website name instead of a url, also ref 3 needs to be formatted to have the source name in the website parameter instead of in the author and title parameters (remove unneeded, bot generated pipe portion)
B.
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):
I don't think having images or not would be a deal-breaker. However, I would recommend adding a fair use image of da Cunha and the Amul girl in the Career section if you want to put some in.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
@
Ktin: Are you planning to look at this soon? Not to pressure you, just want to know for the drive/if I need to put the review on hold.
@
Ktin: Hi, sorry for the long delay. I should br able to restart this review next week, if you like.
@
Ktin: Alright, I'm just going to close this because its been a long time and we've both not been active enough to maintain this nomination.
MSG17 (
talk)
19:22, 20 October 2023 (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.
@
MSG17: not sure how this one fell of my tracking list as I spent most of my time off-wiki in the last few months. I have made the edits -- please can you have a look at your convenience.
Ktin (
talk)
23:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Ktin: No worries, I've been pretty busy too and let this review slip as well. If you want, I will evaluate the page again if you renominate it.
MSG17 (
talk)
12:37, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply