Talk:Ziana Zain/GA1

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

Reviewer: Beloved  Freak  22:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately this article has a long way to go before meeting the GA criteria.
 * 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:


 * There are problems with the manual of style, such as incorrect use of bold text in the lead (only the subject's names should be bold)
 * Violations of the Neutral point of view policy, for example: "Ziana emerged as a sensational star", "Her powerful voice and adorable personality"
 * Incorrect grammar and punctuation (for example capital letters in the middle of sentences)
 * Poor prose throughout (eg. "Ziana emerged as a sensational star after she was discovered by a popular music director, Rahim Othman when the first time he saw her sang with Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM).")
 * There are links to disambiguation pages (Avon and RIM)
 * There are several dead links (some of which are listed at )
 * If "prodarktion" is not an official Youtube channel, then the article is probably linking to copyright violations, which is not allowed
 * I'm unsure of the reliability of some of the sources used (eg. VanityShack, Celebrity Pujaanku, filemkita.com)

I'm a little concerned that the nominator doesn't appear to have edited the article recently, so I'm not sure how invested they are in improving the article. Anyway, my suggestions are:
 * 1) Review the Good Article criteria
 * 2) Tone down the overly positive language
 * 3) Get a thorough copyedit from a native (or professional standard) English-speaker, preferably one who's not already involved in the article
 * 4) Examine the references used to make sure that they all meet WP:RS
 * 5) Request a peer review.

Please let me know if you have any questions.-- Beloved Freak  22:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)