This article has been reviewed as part of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the
Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a
Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through
WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at
WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far..
I would suggest that the listing of the Tittybangbang sketch show amounts to trivia. Amin was satirised on lots of TV sketch shows, nothing makes this notable.Y
I fixed a number of dead links and redirects using
WP:CHECKLINKS. Ref #25
[1] is not a RS; ref #27 redirects to the front page of the Telegraph, not the obituray; ref #28 is a personal webapge not RS; ref #29 redirects to the front page of teh Amnesty site, does not support statement; ref #32 is a mission site reproducing artciles; shiould be correctly attributed; ref #47 same as #27; ref #55 the book should be correctly attributed, ISBN, publisher, etc; ref #60 is not a RS
ref #4
[2] is to a mission site not an RS, it apparently reproduces newspaper articles - these should be cited correctly; ref #10 [an Palmowski, Dictionary of Contemporary World History: From 1900 to the present day. Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2003 (
ISBN0-19-860539-0)] the page number is not cited; ref #24
[3] is a dead link; ref #25
[4] redirects to the Amnesty front page - does not support statement; ref #28 as ref #4; ref #42
[5] is a dead link; ref #43
[6] redirects to a holding page does not support the information; ref #44, a book, needs a page number; ref #56
[7] is a forum or bulletin board - not a RS.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
20:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Yreply
I fixed the Telegraph ones and the Amnesty one. I am replacing the unreliable ones now. I do think this simply deserved a note on the talkpage rather than all of this bureacracy and tallying.
Woody (
talk)
17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Done all of your issues now. Note that all of the information for the books is in the "References" section... Regards,
Woody (
talk)
18:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I am sorry that you don't appreciate that my GA reassessments are made in a consistent fashion. GA reviewers like to use check-lists to make sure that all points are covered and so that editors can see what is going on. I have been through the references again and there are still a number of outstanding issues as per above.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
20:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Ah - you are still working on the references. I took the comment Done all of your issues now to mean that you had finished. No problems, I will come back in a week.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
20:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The links meet GA criteria as they are, I just decided to give them a complete workover to give full information. I must apologise for the dead links you just tagged, I did fix them earlier, but
I somehow removed them, presumably by editing an old version of the page.
In terms of the checklists, I am aware that they are common for GA. But why go through this, creating subpages, getting tallies up on sweeps scoreboards, if all it would have taken was a note on the talkpage saying, you have some dead links, could you fix them? Regards,
Woody (
talk)
20:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)reply
This article has been reviewed as part of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the
Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a
Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through
WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at
WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far..
I would suggest that the listing of the Tittybangbang sketch show amounts to trivia. Amin was satirised on lots of TV sketch shows, nothing makes this notable.Y
I fixed a number of dead links and redirects using
WP:CHECKLINKS. Ref #25
[1] is not a RS; ref #27 redirects to the front page of the Telegraph, not the obituray; ref #28 is a personal webapge not RS; ref #29 redirects to the front page of teh Amnesty site, does not support statement; ref #32 is a mission site reproducing artciles; shiould be correctly attributed; ref #47 same as #27; ref #55 the book should be correctly attributed, ISBN, publisher, etc; ref #60 is not a RS
ref #4
[2] is to a mission site not an RS, it apparently reproduces newspaper articles - these should be cited correctly; ref #10 [an Palmowski, Dictionary of Contemporary World History: From 1900 to the present day. Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2003 (
ISBN0-19-860539-0)] the page number is not cited; ref #24
[3] is a dead link; ref #25
[4] redirects to the Amnesty front page - does not support statement; ref #28 as ref #4; ref #42
[5] is a dead link; ref #43
[6] redirects to a holding page does not support the information; ref #44, a book, needs a page number; ref #56
[7] is a forum or bulletin board - not a RS.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
20:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Yreply
I fixed the Telegraph ones and the Amnesty one. I am replacing the unreliable ones now. I do think this simply deserved a note on the talkpage rather than all of this bureacracy and tallying.
Woody (
talk)
17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Done all of your issues now. Note that all of the information for the books is in the "References" section... Regards,
Woody (
talk)
18:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I am sorry that you don't appreciate that my GA reassessments are made in a consistent fashion. GA reviewers like to use check-lists to make sure that all points are covered and so that editors can see what is going on. I have been through the references again and there are still a number of outstanding issues as per above.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
20:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)reply
Ah - you are still working on the references. I took the comment Done all of your issues now to mean that you had finished. No problems, I will come back in a week.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
20:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The links meet GA criteria as they are, I just decided to give them a complete workover to give full information. I must apologise for the dead links you just tagged, I did fix them earlier, but
I somehow removed them, presumably by editing an old version of the page.
In terms of the checklists, I am aware that they are common for GA. But why go through this, creating subpages, getting tallies up on sweeps scoreboards, if all it would have taken was a note on the talkpage saying, you have some dead links, could you fix them? Regards,
Woody (
talk)
20:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)reply