Talk:Syria/GA1

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

Manual of style issues
Please check Images MofS to see how to stagger and use images especially in relation to section headings. Please choose one style of spelling either American or British and be consistent throughout the article. Pleae check the article for Weasel word and avoid using these in the article. Check the article for any redundancies which will effect the style and grammar of the article. Check Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers) for how to add measurement and dates to the article. See if the TAble of contents can be made smaller using Summary style and checking out guidelines at WP:WIAFA. The heading  Education in Syria should just be Education. The article name already says the in Syria part. The infobox should state the type of currency being used.... for example $87.163 billion... for example. The images should state Photo credit .... if the image is CC by 1 or 2 or 3. So if the image is not public domain, give the image author credit. The article has an error template within it that has not been resolved... [dubious – discuss]. This image does not show up Satellite image of Syria (border lines added). This section is super short: Transport. There is an error template [citation needed]. Is there a map for section Turkish-Syrian dispute over Iskandaron (Hatay) Province? In the external links sections there are web site URLs given but no web site titles can this be rectified? Can any prose be added to the table in the section Fairs and festivals? This sentence is awkward to read Syrian soap operas, in a variety of styles (all melodramatic, however), have considerable market penetration throughout the eastern Arab world... In the first paragraph the word southwest at Southwest Asia needs no capitalisation for a direction.

This is already quite a few items to be considered for GA these should be corrected. This is just on a cursory glance without checking the references, and images in detail or going into the various aspects of the GA nomination criteria.

According to W3C link checker there are broken links


 * http://www.cbs-bank.com/en_index.php/
 * http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/08/wae/ht08wae.htm
 * http://www.alzaytouna.net/arabic/?c=201&a=52460
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_enlargement_of_the_European_Union
 * http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/578856/Syria/29905/Roman-provincial-organization

There were also a number of links sent to redirected places which should be checked if they still verify their facts.

As this is an article on a country and should be of good quality you'se may wish to seek out a peer review and semi-automated peer review before attempting GA the second time to iron out some basic problems. SriMesh | talk  01:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * most of the notes are in this regards, prose or M of S
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Came to GA with fact tags and discussion dispute tag
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Good luck improving the article
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Good luck improving the article
 * Good luck improving the article

Biased Golan heights section
The section is very biased. It should reflect like in the actual article that the section is NOT within Syria, but it's disputed. It's actually currently in Israel. It should also not refer to it as occupation, but annexation or something more neutral. very problematic section, i'm surprised it's like this.

Biased Golan heights section
The section is very biased. It should reflect like in the actual article that the section is NOT within Syria, but it's disputed. It's actually currently in Israel. It should also not refer to it as occupation, but annexation or something more neutral. very problematic section, i'm surprised it's like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.3.65 (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)