Talk:Tahir Dizdari/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Music1201 (talk · contribs) 04:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Criterion 1

1A

Numerous spelling errors.

1B

Lead is only two sentences long; does not accurately summarize the article.

Criterion 2

Criterion 2A

More sources should be included.

Criterion 3

Criterion 3B

Gets off topic in the "Life" section of the article.

Criterion 4

An entire "awards" section is not needed; it is showing a bias in favor of Tahir Dizdari. The section should be merged with another part of the article.

Result

 On hold for 7 days.

Comments from others

The article strikes me as being in rough grammatical shape, with numerous prose and sentence structure problems. It needs a thorough copyedit before it can possibly meet the "clear and concise" criterion, much less the grammatical one. There are also these weird semi-paragraph breaks (new lines, but not full separation) that aren't appropriate.

I also believe the article needs to be reorganized: having only a "Life" section (especially once "Awards" is merged into it) is really not sufficient. Rather than keeping a strict chronology, perhaps sections on folklore, his work on the language, his politics, and other aspects could be their own various sections.

It has been over two weeks since the review was put on hold for one week, and the nominator, Mondiad, hasn't edited on Wikipedia for over a month and a half, so nothing in the review has been addressed. Under the circumstances, Music1201, I think the nomination should be closed as unsuccessful. If Mondiad eventually returns, there's a lot of work that would need to be done to the article to get it ready for a second nomination; right now, this article is about at C class. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

One month later, and nothing has happened. @Music1201: I agree with BlueMoonset: you should close this as a fail, unfortunately. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I see that Mondiad made two edits last week, one of which was adding Sorry, not active lately. Have been busy. to his or her user page. It is indeed time to close this. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

After further reviewing the article, not finding any improvement, along with the comments from BlueMoonset and David Eppstein, I'm closing this review as  Failed. — Music1201 ^talk 23:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)