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

Reviewer: Tomcat7 ( talk · contribs) 17:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead does not summarize the article properly
   Biography sections should be completely reformatted (the German version is a good model)
   Why is "Religious beliefs" in this section?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

   Many paragraphs are unreferenced
   A few questionable sources (primary mostly)

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:

   The lead alone tells me that the article is not neutral enough. Too many praises, etc.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Per the above issues: Not enough in-line citations in the biography section, odd structure, questionable sources-- Tomcat ( 7) 17:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply