Talk:Sayf ol-Dowleh/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 14:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I will be reviewing this. — The Most Comfortable Chair 14:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate your work on this, Amir Ghandi — the article is comprehensive and seems to cover all major aspects. The article is also illustrated nicely, and it cites reliable sources. Overall, this is an impressive effort and it is so close to meeting the good article criteria. The prose quality is arguably the only issue I would say this article has; I was unable to understand some sentences, and there were a few which I felt were fairly ambiguous. I would recommend requesting a copyedit by the GOCE, and then nominating the article. I would be open to reviewing it again after it has been copyedited.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- 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:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Per my comments above — the ambiguity of the prose prevents me from assessing whether the article is factually accurate or if it is neutrally presented. The prose issues would be too difficult to fix during a standard good article review timeframe, so I will be failing this right now, unfortunately. I want to thank Amir Ghandi again for the time and dedication they have put into this — I have no doubt that the article will pass a future good article nomination after it has been copyedited. — The Most Comfortable Chair 04:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
