Talk:Tablighi Jamaat/GA1

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

Reviewer: SBC-YPR (talk)

I will be reviewing this article over the next several days. The version I will be reviewing is this one, and subsequent changes will not form a part of the initial review. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Preliminary review
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:

As a result of the above, I have placed the article on hold for a period of one week, after which I will take a look at it again and accordingly pass or fail the article. Please feel free to contact me for any clarifications. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that i've complete almost all of recommended work. But I was wondering about the FBI estimate. In article, it is presented as 'according to FBI' and not as a fact. Isn't it ok to mention it that way? —  Hamza  [ talk ]  05:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The edits seem to be satisfactory. I've performed a couple of minor copy-edits, and the article looks fine now. The FBI reference is fine as long as its explicitly mentioned to be an estimate. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Final review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I have now passed the article as a GA, and listed it as such on the Good Articles page under Philosophy and religion. For the record, User:Muhammad Hamza contributed significantly to this GA pass (with five or more major edits during the GA review process).

For futher improvement in the future, I would suggest that the article be peer reviewed a second time for obtain suggestions to meet requirements of comprehensiveness and high-quality sourcing, before an FA review is attempted. All the best! Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)