Talk:Ha Ming/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Min968 (talk · contribs) 06:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jishara (talk · contribs) 20:14, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Min968: this is very, very good and quite close. Just one tiny thing and then it's good to go. ping me when it's done. Jishara (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jishara Done. Min968 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Min968: approved. Jishara (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2026 (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, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well-written, well-prosed, understandable, and with a good following of MoS in the five appropriate sections.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

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

   Almost perfect here - reference list is present and in keeping with MoS, all controversial claims are cited, and no signs of copyvio from either Earwig or my own search. A spot-check of 8 sources turns up one minor problem - source 2 in its use at the end doesn't confirm that each book was one volume. Once this is fixed, it should work well.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers this guy's life really well, with coverage that is both broad and focused on him.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral and well-accredited for any potentially controversial claims, including being very clear where claims come from.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No signs of edit wars or anything else unstable - stability worked really well.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

   Both images are correctly attributed and used properly with a relevant caption - no problem here.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.