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.
The article nomination as GA by me has been rejected (See:Talk:President of India/GA1). I think that the article meets good article criteria because i think the article is very well written with citations. Moreover i think well formatted ref are not a part of Good article criteria, the main reason for rejection (please see the review page for details). But i with the help of other user done our best to fix this issue has i have little experience in dealing with ref.
Also, there was a sudden computer failure for the last 7d and hence i was not able to edit during those days.
If there are any further issues if exposed, i will do my best. i still think the article has very good potential to meet the criteria. Suri 100 ( talk) 00:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Rather than simply criticizing the article on minor grounds, i suggest that the article can be improved, the reviewer could have done well - formatted refs as i have poor exp in dealing with those , i myself personally sort his help and also with other user but to no avail. On reliability issue, i have sorted it out (check it out). Suri 100 ( talk) 02:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
But of course i will myself do my best correct the issues in the article (of course excluding ref!). Suri 100 ( talk) 02:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
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.
The article nomination as GA by me has been rejected (See:Talk:President of India/GA1). I think that the article meets good article criteria because i think the article is very well written with citations. Moreover i think well formatted ref are not a part of Good article criteria, the main reason for rejection (please see the review page for details). But i with the help of other user done our best to fix this issue has i have little experience in dealing with ref.
Also, there was a sudden computer failure for the last 7d and hence i was not able to edit during those days.
If there are any further issues if exposed, i will do my best. i still think the article has very good potential to meet the criteria. Suri 100 ( talk) 00:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Rather than simply criticizing the article on minor grounds, i suggest that the article can be improved, the reviewer could have done well - formatted refs as i have poor exp in dealing with those , i myself personally sort his help and also with other user but to no avail. On reliability issue, i have sorted it out (check it out). Suri 100 ( talk) 02:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
But of course i will myself do my best correct the issues in the article (of course excluding ref!). Suri 100 ( talk) 02:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)