[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

Talk:Ali/GA3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 13:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|}fai} b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Before I do a full review the following points need to be exhamined:

  • I feel that the infobox picture does not represent the person Ali, so I propose to replace it with a calligraphic representation, or something similar, like in Muhammed.
  • Ref 31, 37, 112, 133, 134, 137 do not point to any citation. Also I see several dead links
  • I really like the formating of the footnotes etc--Tomcat (7) 20:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tomcat7, I don't recall who opened this up for review, but could you kindly decline it? We're about to enter mediation on the infobox picture, and are just awaiting a mediator to be assigned. I believe this means the article automatically fails criteria 5; plus, the question at hand is the infobox image, and I very strongly feel that the current image is so completely wrong that not only does the article fail criteria 6, but that it's actually damaging the article. Of course, I could be wrong, but we need the mediation to sort this out. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fail. Because I got reverted for removing the amateurish picture. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]