Talk:Zulfiqar Khan Nusrat Jung
 | Zulfiqar Khan Nusrat Jung is currently a Royalty, nobility and heraldry good article nominee. Nominated by Gowhk8 (talk) at 18:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page. Short description: Military general and noble of the Mughal Empire |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article name
editHis name is spelled wrongly in this article...it should be spelled: Zulfiqar Ali Khan. 182.182.82.177 (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2011
- It's now been moved from Zulfikhar Ali Khan to Zulfiqar Khan Nusrat Jung. The names of this kind of article can be difficult, as there's different transliterations used in the sources, it's best to try and establish a consensus here before making any moves. FlagSteward (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Zulfiqar Khan Nusrat Jung/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Gowhk8 (talk · contribs) 18:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Prakashs27 (talk · contribs) 12:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Article has correct spelling and grammar, and can be understood to a broad audience. |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead explains the general info pretty well. There aren't links to common words and no multilinks. |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | This article does have a reflist in accordance with the guidelines. |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | References are all from reliable sources. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Does not contain any original research. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Explains the article without unneccessary detail. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | This article meets all requirements necessary for Good Article status. |