Talk:Mohammad Shah Qajar/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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 15:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll take this. This review will be used in the
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- The article needs a thorough copyedit. I would suggest inputting the text into Microsoft Word or a similar spellchecker and inputting corrections.
- B. It complies with the list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit waror content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are suitable captions:
- A. Images are
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Having read through the article for the spotchecks, it is clear that the prose is substandard for GA. We can do one of two things—(1) you do a copyedit and when you are done ping me and I'll decide to pass or fail or (2) I fail this nomination now, you submit the article to
- @AirshipJungleman29 Fail it for now. I can't attend to it for the time being. Amir Ghandi (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Random spotchecks
These are obviously only of sources I can access, Amir Ghandi. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- 82 good
- 102 bordering upon WP:CLOPbut just about alright
- 14 AGF on Persian
- 75 AGF on Persian
- 21 good
- 105 good
- 73 good
- 106 good
- 123 "on the orders of Mohammad" and "This newspaper was untitled and was referred to" are unverifiable by source
- 98 good
- 33 good
- 127 AGF on Persian.
Source review passed