Talk:Paulos Faraj Rahho/GA1

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

I'll be doing the GA review for this article. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

 * 1) Lead section: This could be improved by adding a little more information.  He seems to be primarily known in the context of his death- adding something to that effect would be an improvement.
 * 2) Added a sentence about his death and the attention it received to the lead.
 * 3) Two minor source issues.  Neither are particularly important to the article, and could just be resolved by removing them if a source isn't readily available.
 * 4) Don't see the source for the presence of particular Bishops other than the Patriarch when Rahho was consecrated Bishop; this detail didn't seem to be present in any of the sources.
 * 5) The idea attributed to Ishtar TV that Rahho was moved during his captivity- didn't find a source for this claim, either.  Since there's speculation that he died shortly after the kidnapping, moving him around seems a little odd.
 * 6) Deleted both of these claims.  Both could be restored with a proper source.
 * 7) Quote section: I think that the MOS generally discourages quotes sections, preferring that quotes be worked into the text where they provide encyclopedic information, and moved to Wikiquote otherwise.  The current articles about Ben Franklin, Winston Churchill, etc., lack dedicated Quotes sections, despite their being some of the most quoted people in the English language.  In my opinion, this section would be better off in Wikiquote, or deleted if Wikiquote does not want it.  I don't believe either quote is very well known outside of the context of this single incident.
 * 8) Deleted this section, and incorporated the quotes into the main text.

I fixed a few grammatical problems, and made sources a little more clear in cases where the information was in the source, but the citation was attached to a sentence above or below it in the article.

--Clay Collier (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: