Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Ali/GA3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Tomcat7 in topic GA Review

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 13:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|}fai} 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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    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)Reply
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)Reply
Fail. Because I got reverted for removing the amateurish picture. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply