Talk:Salimuzzaman Siddiqui/GA2

GA Review

I'll be starting to review this article later today, and will post comments here.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafschik1967 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 15 July, 2008

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Meets quick fail criteria, and a detailed review follows

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose needs work, there are several sentence fragments: "And this was not an isolated example."; MOS issues with punctuation and spacing - sometimes there is a space after a period, sometimes no space, sometimes two spaces, etc.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   A geocities site is not the best reference, they are usually personal home pages. Also, referencing style seems to be inconsistent. I think references might be more useful as all footnotes. Such as, using the full reference in the 'References' section as the footnote text. This isn't a case where one book is used multiple times with multiple page references, so checking for citations in both places doesn't flow very well. Citation template (cite web) are used in some places, whatever is chosen should be consistent throughout. Large sections of text are completely unreferenced as well.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No issues here. Seems to be of appropriate depth.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No issues here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   No issues here.

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):

   Minor comment - maybe a more descriptive caption for the Neem tree photo that's included, but otherwise good, also Neem tree is wikilinked in the text, it probably doesn't need to be from the caption as well.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Definitely needs some work. Aside from the referencing, most of it is just housekeeping. I'm placing the article on hold, and I will check back on any progress in 7-10 days.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leafschik1967 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 15 July, 2008

Sorry about forgetting to sign this. leafschik1967 (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

So the biggest problem here seems to be the prose of the article and how the MOS is followed. A secondary is referencing issues. I'll start on both immediately.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bless sins (talk • contribs) 18:54, July 17, 2008

1. Text improved.

2a. Referencing is now consistent. Use of footnotes and references is as per WP:REF.

2b. Geocities citation fixed.

If you find any statement needing reference, pls clearly mark it so that it could be fixed. Cheers. --IslesCape^Talk 18:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

All tags fixed. Goethe-Institut info was from Geocities article, which has been disputed for reliability, so removed. The 'Death & legacy' statement summarises the discussions to reflect that all the organisations such as PCSIR and H.E.J. Research Institute of Chemistry, as well as other international bodies are still active.--IslesCape^Talk 11:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice job getting everything fixed up promptly. I believe this article now meets GA criteria, so I am passing it. It was an interesting read. leafschik1967 (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the references do not appear to be reliable and others are relying on the subject's own essays as "proof" YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Pls be precise about the sources that need reliability check. References from the subject's works are not just essays but scientific works published in peer-reviewed journals.--IslesCape^Talk 14:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)