Talk:Ahmad Hasan Dani/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Early life section, "He received a Gold Medal for earning highest position that qualified him for a fellowship from the same university." Does this mean that he received the medal for having the highest score on the tests for graduating? And that this allowed him to get a fellowship from the same university? [Fixed]
   • Research contributions section. Could the second paragraph be expanded? Were his arguments about the Indus Valley Civilizations (first sentence) going against the common theories of the time? What did he do to revive the relationship (second sentence)? [Improved]
   • Awards and honors, "Dani also scored highest in his batch". What is a batch? [Fixed]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Current ref #9 (HEC 2004) deadlinks. [Apparently, they have removed all press releases before 2006. So, removed the ref.]
   • Ref #4 (Khan) needs a publisher. [It's on web]
   • Ref #8 (Dani) needs a publisher) [Fixed]

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Please see my second comment in the prose section above. [Improved]

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall a nice article! There are a few things that need to be taken care of before it is of GA status, but they shouldn't take too long to address. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for very useful comments. I have tried to address all your concerns.--IslesCape^Talk 19:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. I have made a couple more tweaks, and am now going to pass the article. As a further suggestion for improvement, whether you want to take the article to A-class or FA status or just to improve it more, would be to reference the career, positions, and awards sections. These sections do not include controversial info, direct quotations or statistics, so they do not need to be referenced for GA status, but I am fairly sure it will be insisted on for A-class or FA. Dana boomer (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)