Talk:Yusef Khan/GA2

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

Reviewer:  Puffin  Let's talk! 21:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

1. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct? ✅ I would say so.

2. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation? ✅ Improved since last review.

3. It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout? ✅

4. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines? ✅ Stable

5. It contains no original research? ✅

6. It addresses the main aspects of the topic? ✅

7. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail? In my opinion, excessive quotes which go into extreme detail and the section has few links to other articles.
 * Addressed, I've made a few quotes less detailed, especially the one in the Quote box. GSorby -  Talk!

8. It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each? ✅

9. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute? ✅

10. Illustrated, if possible, by images: ✅

(a) Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content? ✅

(b) Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions? ✅

Issue: Could there possible be an image in the Storyline development section?

Pass or fail? ✅ Pass Thank you for correcting the issues.