Talk:East Bengal Club/GA1

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

Reviewer: HawkAussie (talk · contribs) 23:39, 25 August 2019 (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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Looking at this article from a quick point, I can say that is a long way for criteria one with that being under well written as the lead is way too short for an article which you hope to get an GA while the prose in the history is too short for a team that was formed in 1920. There is also the fact that I see three sections that have the [citation needed] section which also would be a red flag if it wasn't for the fact that the prose wasn't up to date. Until these steps are completed I'm going to have quick fail this. HawkAussie (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)