Talk:Naushadnama/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 19:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I will review this article for GA, as part of the June Backlog Drive. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2022 (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):

   See below for my comments about the prose.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Four of your sources are from the Bharatan book, which I don't have access to, but I'll AGF that they support what they're supposed to support.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Seems both comprehensive and broad enough.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Only one editor; no edit wars.

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):

   Only two images, one in the infobox of the book's cover and one in the article body. I assume that those were the only two images available; if not, article is short enough to only warrant two images, anyway.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   See below.

This is a good effort, about a topic I don't know much about and probably in need of more coverage and attention on Wikipedia. It's almost too short to warrant promotion to GA. To be honest, I was tempted to quick fail it, but I hesitated because it's languished for so long in the queue and I wanted to give the nominator time to work on it. It's with much regrets, though, that I suggest that you remove this from GAN, work more on the prose and grammar, and then resubmit. I see that the nominator has submitted previous articles to the Guild of Copyeditors; I suggest that they do so again for this article. There are all kinds of grammar issues. For example, this sentence in the lead, It also slightly covers his personal life, such as his birth on the Christmas day of 1919, his two-time marriages, and his death due to cardiac arrest in 2006 has several problems. I suggest that it should read: "It also briefly covers his personal life, including his birth on Christmas day of 1919, his two marriages, and his death from cardiac arrest in 2006." The article is full of errors like this, which I won't take the time to go through because I don't think that a GAN is the place for it, so I think you should get some assistance with the grammar before you resubmit it for GAN. Once you do that, let me know and I'll take another look at it and will pass it if it's appropriate, even if it's months from now. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk)

Fail it, please. I don't think I have time to finish the issues. I am really busy during this month. I will be graduated soon on 16 June and there is a lot of preparations I need to do. I will renominate the article as soon as the end of June. Thank you. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, will do, regretfully. I get you; I just graduated from an intense MA program in English earlier this month. Having a break to focus on fun WP editing feels so good! Push through, finish up, and come back, fer sure. Like I said, let me know when you renominate. Best, congrats on graduating. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)