Talk:Rahimuddin Khan/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi there, I am afraid that this article has quickfailed GA due to severely substandard referencing as per 2(b) of Wikipedia:good article criteria (as noted by the editor above). I suggest that the article be referenced by at least three different reliable and reputable sources on this subject and that a reference be provided at least once every paragraph, in addition to those for any controversial statements and for any direct quotes and statistics. Without referencing to this standard, the article will never pass GA. Please see the list below for other problems.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

Standard of prose is quite poor - the writer appears to have some difficulty with tenses among other things.

Please note that it is quite easy to merge military and politician infoboxes.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Massive stretches of unsourced text, including the entire article below "The Al-Zulfikar airplane hijack". In addition, sources are improperly formatted and several sources that are given clearly fail WP:RS

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

Sources are so inadequate it is difficult to tell.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

Sources are so inadequate it is difficult to tell.

It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Thankyou and I am sorry the review was not more positive, if you disagree with my assesment then you are more than welcome to take the article to WP:GAR. I hope you have better luck next time, all the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]