Talk:Dhruv Rathee/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I.am.a.qwerty (talk · contribs) 11:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

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

---

mostly a well-written article (in terms of English level and structure) but does not meet GA standard or even B quality on account of the referencing and other issues.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   youtube channel and own site referenced

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   youtube channel and own site referenced

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   copyvios checked

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

   more sections needed

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 non-free use rationales):

   only 1 image

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)