Talk:Vinod Bhatia/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: Matarisvan (talk · contribs) 19:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Juxlos (talk · contribs) 03:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Doing this review over this week, hopefully.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   For the most part neutral, as much as you could reasonably get for someone involved in the conflict. My only issue is the use of the term "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir", which I'm sure Pakistani editors would have issues with. Maybe change that to Pakistani-administered Kashmir, per the term used in the lead paragraph of the Kashmir article?

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Plane images are appropriately licensed and good enough in context for the sections they do. I have my doubts on the CC-BY-S.A. licensing of Bhatia's infobox image, since it was uploaded on Commons by a single-upload account in 2019, and I can find colored versions of the image with Google Reverse Image Search. Are you confident that the uploader holds rights to the image? Or is it supposed to be an image in the public domain?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

@Matarisvan: Source and detailed prose checks to follow. Juxlos (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Juxlos, changed all instances of "occupied" to "administered". Working on the infobox image licensing, should be done soon. Matarisvan (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Juxlos, I haven't found any licensing for the infobox image. Would it be alright if I added non-free use licensing? On the GA review of the Java War article, I will post the image review by end of day today, please excuse my delay on that front. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

You would have to remove and reupload for that, I believe. Can't use non-free uses on Commons. Juxlos (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• User:Matarisvan and User:Juxlos: What is the status of this review? Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:12, 4 September 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.