Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
First look
Criteria
No maintenance templates: Y
Relavent images are present: Y
No recent edit wars: Y
Nominator is a signifcant contributor: Y
Copyright
No copyright violations/plagiarism: There's one sentence in the lead and nationwide expansion section ("In 1979, he founded the Institute of Rural Management Anand (IRMA) to groom managers for the cooperatives.") that's copied from the Hindustan Times, so it needs to be reworded. Other than that, there's no copyvios. Y
Images are free (unless a rationale is given if they are not) and tagged: * Images are free (unless a rationale is given if they are not) and tagged: In the last two images' rationales (which need to be tagged as having rationales, because currently, there's a rationale given, but there's a tag on the files with instructions for adding how a rationale has been given in a template), it says that the images should be used to represent a gathering of individuals who are deceased and for whom there is no known representation under a free license, but there is an
image similar to the second image in the article that is under a CC license in Commons, so using the image that is currently in the article violates fair use.
I am bit confused. If my understanding is right, as it states that "and for whom there is no known representation under a 'free' license" and there is an another image, it violates the copyright, right? So, I will remove the image and that will solve the problem?
The article stays on topic and has in-depth coverage of its subject. Looks good
Writing and MoS
There's a couple small errors in the article, but I'll be happy to do cleanup as long as the GA passes. Everything follows MoS, but I think tha it'd be better to rename the death section to be a personal life section, since it also talks about his family and religion.
Neutrality
Due weight is given and there's no editorialism.
References
Evaluating sources
There's a few sources that might have problems with reliability:
1. Britannica is a tertiary source and there's already a secondary source providing that information, so it'll be best to just remove it. Agree it is a tertiary source, have removed it as you mentioned.Y
3. This is published by the article's subject.yes, it was authored by the subject and not to be used as self reference. Have provided an independent source.Y
17. This source isn't independent, since it was published by Kurien's company. Have provided an additional source to back up the same.Y
36. This is also published by the article's subject.It is the same source as #3. As there are two other independent sources, have removed it.Y
59. The Times of India is not considered to be reliable. If the same information from independent and more reliable sources can be found, those sources should be used instead. The Times of India is the one of the oldest and highest circulating English daily in India. Having said that, it does not mean reliability as they have advertorials, hence the WP:MREL as per WP:RSP. It might be questionable when addressing contentious subjects, but as a general news source, it is reliable and have been used in hundreds of GAs related to India. As per WP:MREL, as the instance quoted has other citations available, this does not seem to be an issue. Same with a later source for milk day (which has additional sources). If you insist, will remove the particular citation as there are two other citations for the same sentence. Thanks!
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
First look
Criteria
No maintenance templates: Y
Relavent images are present: Y
No recent edit wars: Y
Nominator is a signifcant contributor: Y
Copyright
No copyright violations/plagiarism: There's one sentence in the lead and nationwide expansion section ("In 1979, he founded the Institute of Rural Management Anand (IRMA) to groom managers for the cooperatives.") that's copied from the Hindustan Times, so it needs to be reworded. Other than that, there's no copyvios. Y
Images are free (unless a rationale is given if they are not) and tagged: * Images are free (unless a rationale is given if they are not) and tagged: In the last two images' rationales (which need to be tagged as having rationales, because currently, there's a rationale given, but there's a tag on the files with instructions for adding how a rationale has been given in a template), it says that the images should be used to represent a gathering of individuals who are deceased and for whom there is no known representation under a free license, but there is an
image similar to the second image in the article that is under a CC license in Commons, so using the image that is currently in the article violates fair use.
I am bit confused. If my understanding is right, as it states that "and for whom there is no known representation under a 'free' license" and there is an another image, it violates the copyright, right? So, I will remove the image and that will solve the problem?
The article stays on topic and has in-depth coverage of its subject. Looks good
Writing and MoS
There's a couple small errors in the article, but I'll be happy to do cleanup as long as the GA passes. Everything follows MoS, but I think tha it'd be better to rename the death section to be a personal life section, since it also talks about his family and religion.
Neutrality
Due weight is given and there's no editorialism.
References
Evaluating sources
There's a few sources that might have problems with reliability:
1. Britannica is a tertiary source and there's already a secondary source providing that information, so it'll be best to just remove it. Agree it is a tertiary source, have removed it as you mentioned.Y
3. This is published by the article's subject.yes, it was authored by the subject and not to be used as self reference. Have provided an independent source.Y
17. This source isn't independent, since it was published by Kurien's company. Have provided an additional source to back up the same.Y
36. This is also published by the article's subject.It is the same source as #3. As there are two other independent sources, have removed it.Y
59. The Times of India is not considered to be reliable. If the same information from independent and more reliable sources can be found, those sources should be used instead. The Times of India is the one of the oldest and highest circulating English daily in India. Having said that, it does not mean reliability as they have advertorials, hence the WP:MREL as per WP:RSP. It might be questionable when addressing contentious subjects, but as a general news source, it is reliable and have been used in hundreds of GAs related to India. As per WP:MREL, as the instance quoted has other citations available, this does not seem to be an issue. Same with a later source for milk day (which has additional sources). If you insist, will remove the particular citation as there are two other citations for the same sentence. Thanks!