Talk:Ali/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 13:27, 4 November 2012 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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): {{GAList/check|}fai} 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

---

Before I do a full review the following points need to be exhamined:

• I feel that the infobox picture does not represent the person Ali, so I propose to replace it with a calligraphic representation, or something similar, like in Muhammed.
• Ref 31, 37, 112, 133, 134, 137 do not point to any citation. Also I see several dead links
• I really like the formating of the footnotes etc--Tomcat (7) 20:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat7, I don't recall who opened this up for review, but could you kindly decline it? We're about to enter mediation on the infobox picture, and are just awaiting a mediator to be assigned. I believe this means the article automatically fails criteria 5; plus, the question at hand is the infobox image, and I very strongly feel that the current image is so completely wrong that not only does the article fail criteria 6, but that it's actually damaging the article. Of course, I could be wrong, but we need the mediation to sort this out. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Fail. Because I got reverted for removing the amateurish picture. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)