Talk:Yusef Khan/GA2
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Puffin Let's talk! 21:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
1. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct? 
I would say so.
2. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation? Improved since last review.
3. It provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout?
4. It provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines? Stable
5. It contains no original research?
6. It addresses the main aspects of the topic?
7. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail? 
In my opinion, excessive quotes which go into extreme detail and the section has few links to other articles.
- Addressed, I've made a few quotes less detailed, especially the one in the Quote box. GSorby - Talk!
8. It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each?
9. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute?
10. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
(a) Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content?
(b) Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions?
Issue: Could there possible be an image in the Storyline development section?
Pass or fail? Pass Thank you for correcting the issues.