Talk:Yasser Usman

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Yasser Usman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vice regent (talk · contribs) 05:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Just starting this review now, give me a few days.VR _talk 05:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• Nicholas Michael Halim can you fix the format of Yasser Usman#Bibliography? Here is an example of how to do the section on works by an author: Karen Armstrong#Works. You could also do a table like J. K. Rowling#Bibliography.VR _talk 21:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well written, no spelling or grammatical issues. However, the lead should summarize all parts of the article. Currently it doesn't summarize his early life, and his early career.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No copyright vio detected by Earwig. It has a properly formatted references section and all references are properly formatted. The article does rely on WP:SPS, most of which is appropriate. However, I'm concerned about this claim, which is sourced back to Usman himself being presented as fact: "Following the publication, Usman received handwritten letters and emails from Khanna's fans, saying that they were surprised about Khanna's loneliness, motivating him to research other popular film stars' lives." Either we find independent secondary sources to verify this claim or we attribute it to Usman himself. We should not pass an author's self-praise off in wikipedia's voice.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article doesn't go in unnecessary detail. However, it seems rather short. I think there should be more details on the work of each of Usman's publications and the reception it garnered. In fact there are already tonnes of details in the GAs on his book: Sanjay Dutt: The Crazy Untold Story of Bollywood's Bad Boy, Rajesh Khanna: The Untold Story of India's First Superstar.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article appears neutral. One concern I have is that the reactions to each of his books in this article are positive and shallow, making this article read almost like a promotion for the author. I think this will be resolved when more detailed reviews are included in the article, some of which hopefully go beyond simple praise and analyze his works more deeply.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   It would be nice if we had an image of the cover of one of his books. They are already there at the articles on his books. Please add.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

@Nicholas Michael Halim: I think the article is good but please address the concerns above, thanks. VR _talk 04:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nicholas Michael Halim: Thanks! Do you think the article could benefit from an image or two of Usman's books? VR _talk 16:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I think it's unnecessary. All the cover images are in copyright and should be placed only in one article, which is about the book the cover belongs to; I read the policy somewhere but I forgot the exact. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, GA passed. Congratulations.VR _talk 16:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)