Talk:Mohammad Shah Qajar/GA1

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 15:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this. This review will be used in the WikiCup and the current backlog drive—please consider participating in either. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * The article needs a thorough copyedit. I would suggest inputting the text into Microsoft Word or a similar spellchecker and inputting corrections.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Having read through the article for the spotchecks, it is clear that the prose is substandard for GA. We can do one of two things—(1) you do a copyedit and when you are done ping me and I'll decide to pass or fail or (2) I fail this nomination now, you submit the article to WP:GOCE, and return it afterwards to WP:GAN. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @AirshipJungleman29 Fail it for now. I can't attend to it for the time being. Amir Ghandi (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Random spotchecks
These are obviously only of sources I can access,. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC) Source review passed
 * 82  good
 * 102 bordering upon WP:CLOP but just about alright
 * 14  AGF on Persian
 * 75  AGF on Persian
 * 21  good
 * 105 good
 * 73  good
 * 106 good
 * 123 "on the orders of Mohammad" and "This newspaper was untitled and was referred to" are unverifiable by source
 * 98  good
 * 33  good
 * 127 AGF on Persian.