Talk:Saharon Shelah/GA1

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

Reviewer: RecycledPixels (talk · contribs) 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I will take a look at this nomination. Before getting too deep into it, I have a question for the nominator; what is your connection to this article? At a glance, it does not appear that you have ever made any edits to the article other than nominating it for GA, and you have only 17 edits on that account spanning two days of activity. Is this a new account? Are there other significant contributors to this article who agree that this should be nominated and will participate in the GA review if needed? RecycledPixels (talk) 20:10, 16 September 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):
 * Lead section needs to more completely summarize the article, including what makes him notable, not just that he's a professor of mathematics. Some extremely brief paragraphs in the biography section need to be combined, rewritten, edited.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Not all references are properly cited, some bare URLs. Numerous citation needed tags in the article.  Significant close paraphrasing issues from .  Unable to determine OR with as many citation needed tags present.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article covers brief personal biography and academic career.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Information is neutrally presented.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Recent citation needed tags added to the article indicate disputes with the article's content.
 * 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):
 * One image, credibly tagged with CC license, brief caption included. No issues there.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Article needs considerable work before meeting the GA standards. Given the fact that the nominator is a very new contributor who only had a few contributions over the course of two days, none to this article, and the fact that this article has not received any significant editing in the past year, I am not convinced that this was a terribly serious nomination, but I have reviewed it for those who are interested. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)