GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 13:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|}fai} b (focused):
- a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|}fai} b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- 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)
- 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)