Talk:Salah Asuhan/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Successful good article nomination
[edit]I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 21, 2011, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Quick fail here. The lede/intro fails WP:LEAD - it does not adequately summarize the entire article's contents. Writing quality is fair - but honestly so much significant expansion is necessary before this can be considered thorough, that this is not even the main sticking issue. A subsequent review of the quality of the writing content would have to be performed, after this needed expansion. I would suggest going for a Peer Review, only after the expansion, to seek out previously uninvolved users as copyeditors.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Only four sources are used. Surely there must be other secondary WP:RS sources covering this subject matter. I would recommend attempting to bring the number of references cited to at least ten or perhaps twenty, in order to provide a more comprehensive representation of scholarship out there on this topic.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Quick fail here. Article is sorely lacking in comprehensiveness. Virtually every single subsection in this article needs to be significantly expanded upon.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Neutral tone, but the assertions of importance and notability made depend upon an analysis of so few cited sources that this is hard to evaluate.
- 5. Article stability? No major outstanding issues upon inspection of article edit history and talk page.
- 6. Images?: Quick fail here. File:Cover of salah asuhan.jpg - this image should have a more detailed fair use rationale. Consider using WP:FURME.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— -- Cirt (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)