Talk:Mohammad Shah Qajar/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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 15:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this. This review will be used in the WikiCup and the current backlog drive—please consider participating in either. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The article needs a thorough copyedit. I would suggest inputting the text into Microsoft Word or a similar spellchecker and inputting corrections.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Having read through the article for the spotchecks, it is clear that the prose is substandard for GA. We can do one of two things—(1) you do a copyedit and when you are done ping me and I'll decide to pass or fail or (2) I fail this nomination now, you submit the article to WP:GOCE, and return it afterwards to WP:GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Fail it for now. I can't attend to it for the time being. Amir Ghandi (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Random spotchecks

These are obviously only of sources I can access, Amir Ghandi. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• 82 good
• 102 bordering upon WP:CLOP but just about alright
• 14 AGF on Persian
• 75 AGF on Persian
• 21 good
• 105 good
• 73 good
• 106 good
• 123 "on the orders of Mohammad" and "This newspaper was untitled and was referred to" are unverifiable by source
• 98 good
• 33 good
• 127 AGF on Persian.

Source review passed

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.