Talk:Mohammed Deif/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.

---

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

Nominator: M3ATH (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Asilvering (talk · contribs) 22:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, planning to get to this by this weekend. -- asilvering (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2024 (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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

General comments

1. There are no images in this article whatsoever. We may not have a good free image of him himself, but surely a useful free image can be found that is related to the article? -- asilvering (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
2. Please take another run through the article for npov issues; for example, daring and successful raid is not acceptable wikivoice. -- asilvering (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
3. There is a lot of overcitation here to sources of questionable reliability. Many of these sources are simply working off articles by other newsrooms; many articles I checked have no byline. Please try to cut out the churnalism here and stick to the best-quality sources. -- asilvering (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

M3ATH, I think this is a fail in its current state, and that it is sufficiently far from meeting the criteria that a QF could be justified. But I don't think it's an impossible ask to tidy this up within a week, and I know you've been waiting a while for this review, so I'll leave the choice up to you. If you're prepared to do a lot of work on it, I'm happy to keep the review open and see where we can get. -- asilvering (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.