Talk:Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed/GA1
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 13:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. My apologies for the long wait! If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello @Ganesha811:! Thank you for taking up this review. I'll be watching this page, but responses might get a little delayed. Thank you again and do keep the suggestions coming. :) Ashwin147 (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! There are a number of sourcing issues with this article. I'm going to keep on going through the sources, but after that will put the rest of the review on hold until source problems are addressed. Sourcing concerns like this could lead to a failure to pass GA, so they'll have to be addressed first before other issues are discussed. Let me know your timeline for being able to address them. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- I'm held up by work during weekdays. But I shall keep checking/rectifying/responding whenever I can catch a break. Ashwin147 (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! I'm going to put this on hold for a week. However, the sourcing issues are significant, and the list below doesn't even include everything that could be improved. If the sourcing is not dramatically improved, I may have to fail the nomination per WP:GAFAIL issue #1, namely that is a long way from meeting GA criteria #2. I understand that you are busy and that you waited a long time for this review, and if you request it, I can extend the hold for another week to give you more time. The issues are fixable, but it will take a lot of work to fix them. Let me know what you think of all this. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hey. Just gimme a little more time. I think I've fixed most of the stuff you'd flagged. The combining of sources bit remains and I'm no good with Visual Editor. So do extend the hold. Ashwin147 (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- We're not at a week yet, but if the hold needs to be extended when it expires on the 6th, I'm happy to do so. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Ashwin147, I noticed you haven't edited the article since the 2nd. Will you have time in the next week (before the 13th) to address the remaining source issues, and any others that may come up? —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- We're not at a week yet, but if the hold needs to be extended when it expires on the 6th, I'm happy to do so. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hey. Just gimme a little more time. I think I've fixed most of the stuff you'd flagged. The combining of sources bit remains and I'm no good with Visual Editor. So do extend the hold. Ashwin147 (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! I'm going to put this on hold for a week. However, the sourcing issues are significant, and the list below doesn't even include everything that could be improved. If the sourcing is not dramatically improved, I may have to fail the nomination per WP:GAFAIL issue #1, namely that is a long way from meeting GA criteria #2. I understand that you are busy and that you waited a long time for this review, and if you request it, I can extend the hold for another week to give you more time. The issues are fixable, but it will take a lot of work to fix them. Let me know what you think of all this. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello @Ganesha811:! Thank you for taking up this review. I'll be watching this page, but responses might get a little delayed. Thank you again and do keep the suggestions coming. :) Ashwin147 (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hey! Been a busy couple of weeks. I see light at the end of the tunnel now. Can we extend the date to the 16th evening? That should give me the benefit of a weekend in case things don't wind up by the 13th. Ashwin147 (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| ||
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| ||
![]() |
2b. 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). |
| ||
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| ||
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| ||
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| ||
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| ||
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| ||
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| ||
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
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.