Talk:Persian literature/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 28, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • No, this is not reasonably well written. I recommend a through copy-edit throughout to improve readability, grammar and style. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • There are some parenthetical references and mostly footnotes, recommend making the parenthetical into in-line citations and changing further reading list to Works cites as appropriate. ISBN should be supplied for all books (last two books). Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Large sections are un-cited. The footnotes need to be consistent, ege the Shakespeare reference should cite the passage. The journal cites should use '''{{cite journal}}''', books should use '''{{cite book}}''' with page numbers as appropriate.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Reference #23 (angelfire is a blackisted URL and as personal webpage not RS Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • There shouldn't be an image in the references section.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • There are a lot of problems with this artcile which is sadly not near the GA standarad at present. I am boldly de-listing. Please bring to WP:GAN when tehse issues ahve been fixed. Notifying major contributors and projects. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)