Talk:Qamar Javed Bajwa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Will come back shortly. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The article definitely up to the mark. It clearly doesn't satisfy the GA criteria. I fear that it may not be made to the mark for the following reasons:

• Has lot of issues with the MoS, needs a thorough copy-edit from an experienced copy editor.
• The Education section is too small and needs considerable expansion.
• Expansion of career section is also required.
• More importantly the article is not stable. It has been constantly edited by several editors in the recent times. As he has recently taken over the chief of the army, this article will be edited regularly as long he continues in the position because he come to the news every now and then.
• See if you can expand the sections as mentioned.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Thanks for comments. Will work on MoS and copyediting, but as for expanding education and career sections, I don't I would be able to expand it since there's nothing else that i could cite from reliable third party sources. Should we have to wait until the subject get more coverage? --Saqib (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The article is perfect B-class, but I doubt it satisfies the GA criteria. One of the foremost reason is that the article is not stable, and also need to dealt with MOS. Even if it reaches GA for now, as he is the current Pak Army Chief, the information changes rapidly and the article may edited by many, will bleed the GA status. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If this is the case, lets close this nomination for a while. --Saqib (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2016 (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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)