Talk:Ujjal Dosanjh/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The last sentence, about his full name is vital, and should either be in the lead or in the "early life" section. The phrase "for those interested" is highly unprofessional and unencyclopedic and should be avoided.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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):

   I cannot understand how his signature can be the work of the US government.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Fix the two issues, and you have a GA. Good work so far. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your time in reviewing this. I have removed the image and moved his full name to the lead. I have inquired about the image licensing at the Commons --maclean 22:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am passing the article. It is well-written, but if you have ambitions of FA, you may need to lengthen it. Concerning the signature, it might be possible to use it under fair use (but I am no good with copyright status, so don't take my word for it). Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)