Talk:Amir Hamzah/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Beginning first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What a very sad story! I felt quite downcast as I read through the article.
 * Review

I don't propose to hang about over this one. The article plainly meets all the GA criteria, in my view. There are a few minor drafting points I'd get pernickety about if this were a candidate for FA but the prose far exceeds the GA criterion "reasonably well written". The justification for the single non-free image is explained. To my layman's eye there is nothing omitted, and the balance is good. There is copious citation of a good range of sources. I see no reason to delay.

If you decide to go on to FAC please tell me, and if perchance you want my tiny quibbles before FAC, let me know and I'll add them to the article talk page.

GA
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Well, that was easy. If only all GA candidates were likewise! Tim riley (talk)

Indeed! Thanks for the review Tim.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)