Talk:2009 Shri Shyam Bhajan Hindu religious festival held in Hyderabad

Notes about Original Reporting

I attended the program. I am also uploading the pictures on 2009 Shri Shyam Bhajan Amritvarsha Hyderabad as well. Shyam ^(T/C) 11:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Not a single source found for such a big event. Please consider before publishing.--110.37.17.194 (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Review Nr. 1

Revision ID Revision ID of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Needs grammatical and stylistical corrections; for instance, past tense should be used instead of present. Punctuation needs improvement as well. Also, some words need to be explained for an international audience - for instance, some readers might not be familiar with words like aarti, chhappan bhog and bhajan. Comments by reviewer: -- Tempodivalse [talk] 23:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision ID Revision ID of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Needs grammatical and stylistical corrections; for instance, past tense should be used instead of present. Punctuation needs improvement as well. Also, some words need to be explained for an international audience - for instance, some readers might not be familiar with words like aarti, chhappan bhog and bhajan. Comments by reviewer: -- Tempodivalse [talk] 23:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

I have changed the article in past tense. Most of the terminologies have been explained. I am not sure about the punctuations, which can be improved. If someone could let me know or improve them himself/herself, would be much-appreciated. Thanks for review, Shyam ^(T/C) 06:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reworked the article a bit for extra clarity and corrected punctuation where necessary. It looks good now, but I'll have to let someone else review it as I think I no longer qualify as an uninvolved editor and thus can't review it myself (see WN:REVIEW). Tempodivalse [talk] 18:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Review 2

Revision 863043 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As always with Original Reporting, there is a huge Assumption of Good Faith when publishing an OR article. In this case it is even worse, since there are no English language sources available for at least cursory verification that the event even took place:P. This problem is compounded by the fact that this is extremely local news, and wouldn't even be reported in local languages except in the very city that it took place in. Despite the verification problems, I'm passing this on Assume Good Faith because the editor seems to be in good standing on Wikipedia, and in relatively good standing on Wikinews (not withstanding that kerfuffle over not understanding the review process). Feel free to comment here or on my user-page if you disagree, since it is certainly a debatable choice. Gopher65talk 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 863043 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As always with Original Reporting, there is a huge Assumption of Good Faith when publishing an OR article. In this case it is even worse, since there are no English language sources available for at least cursory verification that the event even took place:P. This problem is compounded by the fact that this is extremely local news, and wouldn't even be reported in local languages except in the very city that it took place in. Despite the verification problems, I'm passing this on Assume Good Faith because the editor seems to be in good standing on Wikipedia, and in relatively good standing on Wikinews (not withstanding that kerfuffle over not understanding the review process). Feel free to comment here or on my user-page if you disagree, since it is certainly a debatable choice. Gopher65talk 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.