Talk:Morteza Avini/GA1
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Sa.vakilian in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: I want to review this article. seyyed (talk · contribs) 07:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
On hold
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: On hold
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
Done
- 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: Done
- C. It contains no original research: Done
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: On hold
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: On hold
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): On hold
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: On hold
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Done
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: On hold
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: On hold
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: On hold
- Pass or Fail:
What should be added:
- The article says almost nothing about Avini's writing after revolution. It just mentions their names in Bibliography. While he has written most of his theories in his works.
- The article just mention the name of "Sureh magazine" which was an important critical magazine regarding art and culture of its time.
- The article says nothing about Avini's objection towards Akbar Hashemi's development plan and censorship of his voice in that era.
- The article should pay attention to critical dialogue between Avini and revolutionary hardliners as well as Avini and modernists.
--Seyyed(t-c) 07:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Query
editseyyed, Mhhossein, it has been over four weeks, and there haven't been any edits to the article or other acknowledgement of this review. Perhaps it is time to close the review if the additions that were requested are not going to be made. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree to close this review and renominate the article after solving the major problems.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset: Thanks for reminding. I don't insist on having it unclosed. I'll address the raised issues perhaps in few weeks. --Mhhossein talk 03:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Failed Because there are several issues which should be covered by the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 18:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)