Talk:Hussein Saeed

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hussein Saeed. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.iraqsport.com/blog/?p=10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hussein Saeed/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  18:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The first paragraph of the early life section needs a citation

   "Since then, Iraq was not able to qualify to the World Cup" - this too needs a source

   " Saeed played all the 630 minutes of Iraq's 7 matches" - missing full stop

   " One of the documents even showed him and Al-Badri executing a mission" - remove 'even', sounds informal

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No original research found.

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:

Just a few minor issues to address, but other than this the article is looking great. On hold JAGUAR  18:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The issues pointed out in the (It is reasonably written well) section are now solved. Hashima20 (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this looks ready to be promoted now. JAGUAR  19:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Really appreciate it! Hashima20 (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)