Talk:Aliqoli Jadid-ol-Eslam/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 18:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I like the prose and you comply with the MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Well referenced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well-written article about an interesting person, I'm happy to pass as a GA. I left a couple comments below but those are the only issues I found. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead: The phrase "major polemicist" should have a reference per GA criterion #2.b (direct quotation). I'm guessing it's from Amanat but that's not clear from the footnote at the end of the paragraph. I removed the phrase so as not to hold up the review, if you'd like to add it back just add a reference.
• Works: You mention Esbat ol-nabovva in footnote b but not in the list of works, wouldn't hurt to add it to the list. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Cerebellum: Thank you very much for your time. Excuse me for my belated response. I didn't add it (Esbat ol-nabovva) to the list on purpose as academics express uncertainties about the work. They also refrain from providing any in-depth information about the work (date of completion, etc.) unlike the listed works. Hence I felt a footnote was going to be sufficient, at least until new scholarly material is published. Cheers, - LouisAragon (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)