From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus ( talk · contribs) 12:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I'll start on this one today or tomorrow. −-- Coemgenus ( talk) 12:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a ( major aspects): b ( focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

  • This seems to be up to standard. It looks like you had a thorough review before that ironed out most of the sticking points, so I don't have too much to add.
  • The title: are you sure it should be italicized? I get that it's a foreign word, but I've not seen that before as a reason to italicize.
  • I'm all for redlinks, but do you think anyone will write an article on camel bone?
  • I see that owning a khanjar is no longer restricted to the upper classes, but is it common among the lower classes now? If one were to visit Oman, would one see khanjars on every hip?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Coemgenus ( talk · contribs) 12:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I'll start on this one today or tomorrow. −-- Coemgenus ( talk) 12:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a ( major aspects): b ( focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

  • This seems to be up to standard. It looks like you had a thorough review before that ironed out most of the sticking points, so I don't have too much to add.
  • The title: are you sure it should be italicized? I get that it's a foreign word, but I've not seen that before as a reason to italicize.
  • I'm all for redlinks, but do you think anyone will write an article on camel bone?
  • I see that owning a khanjar is no longer restricted to the upper classes, but is it common among the lower classes now? If one were to visit Oman, would one see khanjars on every hip?

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook