Talk:Pakistani 75 Rupee Commemoration Notes/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Infoadder95 (talk · contribs) 15:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 16:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 1, 2025, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: no

2. Verifiable?: no

3. Broad in coverage?: maybe

4. Neutral point of view?: no

5. Stable?: yes

6. Images?: no

This article is extremely far from meeting the GA criteria, for several reasons:

There is close paraphrasing of the sources: for example, this dawn.com source is extensively plagiarised. This is grounds for failure by itself.

There are layout issues throughout the article. The WP:LEAD is too short and does not summarise the article. There is consistent MOS:OVERSECTION: there should be a maximum of three sections in the body of the prose, and yet there are thirteen. The two tables in the body are useless and should be removed.

There are verifiability issues. One paragraph is unsourced. Many paragraphs are ended in blocks of five or more citations, when in reality they are only cited to one or two of them. This is clear WP:CITEKILL.

There is almost absurd promotion—why are the LinkedIn accounts of two people mentioned linked?

The images are non-free and should be used minimally; however, there are two of each in the article for no good reason. The captions also include a non-free rationale, which are not meant to be there at all.

In summary, this article is far below the GA criteria and needs to be worked on extensively before a new nomination.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I have clarified some of the issues you mentioned;

1. The linkedin accounts are featured because they are no other Wikipedia article linkings these people and no other major external links, if not suitable I can remove them.
2. The Images are used to illustrate the contents of the article, how would a reader know what they even look like if they are not present there, most readers do not bother to even google search on the topic.
3. I did not find any paragraph which is not cited.

I will try my best to solve all of the issues before renomination. Infoadder95 (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 It is requested that you reply quickly, because I need to know about the specific reasoning of the problems you highlighted. Infoadder95 (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

My apologies on 3), it appears I misread. The LinkedIn accounts are clearly inappropriate and indeed should be removed immediately. The issue with images are not that they appear but that they appear twice each. If a file is under copyright, it should be used as little as possible. Removing the two small versions in the infobox would suffice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

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.