Talk:Sinsharishkun

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sinsharishkun/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 08:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations – not applicable.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

As with Ashur-etil-ilani earlier, this is well written and reliably sourced. The coverage is in scope and doesn't over-speculate about another enigmatic subject. I just made a few tweaks as I was going through it. I'm pleased to promote it to GA. Two in one day. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: As before, thank you very much for taking the time to look through this one, and for passing the review :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)