Talk:Anjana River

Anjana River was nominated as a Geography and places good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 3, 2023). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

India: West Bengal Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal.

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Anjana River/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aintabli (talk · contribs) 21:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is promising, but there are problems that would better be solved outside a GA review. Links to some sources are dead, such as this. Some citations are incomplete; for example, one reference just included the link "Google Books". The article is on a geographical subject, yet pretty much most of the sources are from news sites. I would expect some more sources, books or other publications by experts on the subject. The article needs to be expanded, specifically Anjana River#Geology and Anjana River#History are a bit too short. The lead doesn't appear to be a summary of the article but has information not mentioned elsewhere and includes more than half of the references. Ideally, it wouldn't have any references and would only mention some of the key points. Simply, dealing with all of the aforementioned issues, plus copyedits and spotchecks, would constitute more than just a review. This list of good articles on related topics could be useful as a reference for how a GA should ideally be like. (Though, please note some of these articles could be reassessed and may not necessarily exemplify a proper GA.) Aintabli (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]