Talk:Kazi Nazrul Islam/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 06:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	It is written like a parochial hagiography, which can't even agree how to render his wife's name consistently.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead includes a conspiracy theory (poisoning) not discussed in the body. Plenty of "words to watch" violations throughout.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	What references we do have are adequately formatted.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I see no issues with the reliability of the inline citations we DO have in the article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Many statements of fact throughout the article should have in-line citations but do not. e.g., "Nazrul became the first person to introduce Islam into the larger mainstream tradition of Bengali music."
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's detector finds at least three websites where close paraphrasing to (or from) the article has taken place. This needs further investigation beyond the scope of just a review.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Seems appropriate
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	"Noted Nazrul Sangeet singers" section is coatracking, which I would consider insufficiently related to this gentleman's own article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	"Exploring the life and conditions of the downtrodden masses of the Indian subcontinent, Nazrul worked for their emancipation." That's in the lead? Yeah... no.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Borderline. There's a moderate bit of churn ongoing, compared to how little the talk page is used.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All the contemporary photos are fine, but "File:Statue of Kazi Nazrul Islam, Asansol.jpg" may infringe on the copyright of the work of sculpture. I'm simply not sure how the rights of the sculptor influence our decision to portray a picture of the sculpture, but even if this were removed or deemed 100% acceptable, that would still not change the status of the article, given the other issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There may even be too many, which is a good problem to have.
	7. Overall assessment.	With regrets, this article on a clearly important and worthy gentleman is not up to GA standards for the reasons outlined above.

First read-through

Working. This may take me a few days, but you've been waiting for about six months, so I thought I'd let you at least know that this is on my radar next and you WILL get a thorough review from me. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the problems with this article are so many and varied that there's really no good way to place this on hold. It needs to be fundamentally rewritten in a neutral voice, with better prose. I learned a lot from reading through it, and I wish it were better than it currently is. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)