Talk:Zesh Rehman/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 04:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   see comments 2 and 4

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   see comments 5 and 6

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   see comment 3 and possibly 4

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. "inspires the next generation of [British] Asian footballers." Why is "British" in brackets?

   Appropriately edited. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

2. "placed on the transfer list following a disciplinary matter." What was the matter? It seems from the source that it was about comments made earlier. What were the comments?

   DoneRRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

3. "defending admirably" this is puffery that should be avoided.

   DoneRRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

4. The use of quotes, particularly the pull quote, is problematic. The information could and should be better incorporated through paraphrasing or is not particularly important. They seem to be Rehman's opinions on the moves and are dropped without comment which isn't very useful. Further, they cause a break from the encyclopedic tone, and pull quotes contribute to a non-neutral tone. (see WP:QUOTEFARM)

   Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC) - removed them as they are unimportant. (I am positive to this.) Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

5. Footnote 4 needs to be fixed as it seems to be missing a parameter.

• Done. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

2. A number of citations need to be edited so that the dates are consistent.

• Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• The last image is very low quality. I would recommend against using it.

• Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Wugapodes Have a look. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Results

On hold for 7 days pending revisions.

Listed Looks good! Thanks for the contribution, and keep up the hard work! Wugapodes (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)