Talk:Mohammed Deif/GA1

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

Nominator:

Reviewer: Asilvering (talk · contribs) 22:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, planning to get to this by this weekend. -- asilvering (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2024 (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 (inline 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 non-free 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

General comments

 * 1) There are no images in this article whatsoever. We may not have a good free image of him himself, but surely a useful free image can be found that is related to the article? -- asilvering (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 2) Please take another run through the article for npov issues; for example, daring and successful raid is not acceptable wikivoice. -- asilvering (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 3) There is a lot of overcitation here to sources of questionable reliability. Many of these sources are simply working off articles by other newsrooms; many articles I checked have no byline. Please try to cut out the churnalism here and stick to the best-quality sources. -- asilvering (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

, I think this is a fail in its current state, and that it is sufficiently far from meeting the criteria that a QF could be justified. But I don't think it's an impossible ask to tidy this up within a week, and I know you've been waiting a while for this review, so I'll leave the choice up to you. If you're prepared to do a lot of work on it, I'm happy to keep the review open and see where we can get. -- asilvering (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)