(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
This article is not written in a flowing and consistent prose that tells an encyclopedic story. The introduction is well written, but after that it is clear that the article has not been edited together properly. A lot of facts and figures are quoted, often out of date order and contradicting each other. The sentence structure after the introduction is poor, with a lot of short statements and lists that appear to be taken from a lot of difference sources with little linking together. In many sections there is no context or 'so what' from all the facts and figures listed.
Fail
(b) (MoS)
On the whole the article follows the MoS and the layout is sensible and works.
See below for further details. Many of the sources are out of date (some from pre-2005) and have not been updated to reflect the current situation. There are several dead links
Fail
(b) (citations to reliable sources)
Many of the sources and citations listed are very dubious. There is a significant bias towards pro-Hezbollah and anti-Israel sources (especially news sites and opinion pieces). Very few of the facts are backed up by reliable figures that come from independent assessments. A lot of the points are presented as hard verifiable facts. Many of the facts and figures quoted in the table are apparently backed up by 4 or 5 different sources. However, an analysis of these sources shows that they quote different figures to the ones shown in the table.
Fail
(c) (original research)
Whilst the article is well cited and apparently without much original research, many of the citations are of poor quality and are a based on a single bias opinion. Therefore a lot of the facts here could be considered to be very close to original research as they do not provide multiple/peer reviewed sources and are not verifiable.
Fail
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)
The reviewer has no notes here.
Undetermined
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
The article covers a good range. However, it needs to be more closely linked to the main Hezbollah article section of the same name, as they have different facts and figures.
On hold
(b) (focused)
The article is not really just focused on a encyclopedic coverage of the strength of Hezbollah, but rather appears to be an attempt to prove that Hezbollah has a certain level of strength and is better than its opponents. There are some very good parts, but also a lot of unreliable figures quoted as absolute fact, including contradictions due to different parts being edited at different times and from different sources.
Fail
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
This article is far from a neutral viewpoint. It shows significant bias towards Hezbollah and highlighting how it is 'better' than it opponents repeatably, often with dubious or bias sources. The article is not currently encyclopedic in nature and leans towards propaganda.
Fail
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Notes
Result
Appears to be fairly stable with only minor changes occurring regularly.
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
The images appear to comply with all copyright rules and are well used and informative.
Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)
The captions all support the images and add to the article and photos.
This article has not been accepted for GA status and I would currently rate it somewhere between C & B class on a quality scale. It is confused over what it is trying to say and in many cases is just a list of facts and figures that needs blending together into an article. This was only a quick review and I found significant bias, poor citations, unverified research in the sources and felt that the prose was poor. Arguably it is also excessively detailed as it contains a lot of information that is available on other pages, which, unless it is well maintained, means it quickly degrades in quality and ends up with different figures/facts. I have not provided blow by blow what needs to be changed, as the article really needs to have a copyedit and be updated and re-written. Once that has occurred and the article is more balanced and flowing it could be re-considered for GA nomination.
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
Fail
Pass
Undetermined
On hold