Images in infobox

‎Bharath99390i0 has made several edits that have been reverted changing the images in the infobox to 9 in total. I think that's way too many and am starting this hoping they will participate and figure out a consensus on the images to use. Ravensfire (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I believe either a 1/2/2/2/1 or 1/2/2/2 image grid would be good and would improve this page. More images covering historical, topographical aspects, and those that also represent both coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions are needed. Iconic monuments like Thotlakonda, Lepakshi Nandi, and natural treasures like Araku Valley, the Vizag coastline, and the Gandikota Canyon would be great additions. Looking forward to more inputs and suggestions. Arjunaraoc Vikckyy (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vikckyy, Please see the earlier discussion. Thanks. Arjunaraoc (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Reviewer withdrawn. CMD (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2025 (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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Andhra Pradesh/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Arjunaraoc (talk · contribs) 09:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk · contribs) 04:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will start this now. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz do you plan to review this GAN, bcs it's been 3 months? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the delay. Stuff IRL took over. Have been working on it and will have it done this weekend. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: it can go back in the queue if you don't have time to review it? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your polite inquiries, DoctorWhoFan91. I withdraw from the review process. Unfortunately, I find that my interest in Wikipedia, as a US-dominated institution, has declined markedly, since the US has become an antagonistic nation, threatening to annex Canada. I apologise for not having withdrawn more quickly. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2025 (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.

length of coastline

The coastline article indicates third not second longest coastline, however the cited reference document indicates that second is correct. Reference may however be obsolete after changes to state boundaries. 99.126.178.176 (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Andhra Pradesh/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Arjunaraoc (talk · contribs) 09:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Xiphoid Vigour (talk · contribs) 16:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be the reviewer for this GA nominee! Xiphoid Vigour ༈Duel༈ 16:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The lead section is good. Transcription and IPA had some typos, which I've fixed. Seems no problem.Green tickYXiphoid Vigour ༈Duel༈ 15:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The history & etymology sectiona are also well written.Green tickY Xiphoid Vigour ༈Duel༈ 03:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The geography section is okay neither very good nor bad. May need a bit of reform for comfortable navigation.= Xiphoid Vigour ༈Duel༈ 04:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics would be rated exactly neutral. == Xiphoid Vigour ༈Duel༈ 04:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the article is good.Green tickY.Now checking citations Xiphoid Vigour ༈Duel༈ 13:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andhra_Pradesh
No tags for this post.