Talk:Majed Abu Maraheel/GA1

Latest comment: 8 months ago by Sawyer-mcdonell in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell (talk · contribs) 19:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply


Well-written

  • the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct  Y
  • it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation  Y
    • not a requirement for GA, but I think the "personal life" section, being so short, could be merged into the "early life" section and turned into "early and personal life" or something along those lines. I'm not sure what the MOS (or WP guideline etc) is for the "achievements" box, but it might be better as a subsection of the "career" section rather than entirely as its own section. let me know what you think.
      • I flipped through the other athletics GAs; all of them with a table like that had it as its own achievements section, so I'll probably defer to that convention for this. Good idea that the personal life can be merged; I did so. - G

Verifiable with no original research

Broad in its coverage

  • it addresses the main aspects of the topic  Y
  • it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)  Y

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each  Y

  • excellent job with an article that's both a BLP & ARBPIA-related :)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute  Y

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

@Arconning @Generalissima I've done my initial review; I'll continue looking through it in case I notice anything else, but overall it's a really solid article. I've got a couple of non-strictly-binding suggestions. Thanks for your nomination! sawyer * he/they * talk 02:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sawyer-mcdonell: Rad, responded to your feedback. Generalissima (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Awesome, looks great. Congrats guys! sawyer * he/they * talk 03:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
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.