Talk:Maajid Nawaz/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 22:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this article has had to wait far too long to be reviewed. I'll give it a look. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few problems here that would need to be fixed before this article could pass as a GA:

The prose requires correct formatting. For instance, all newspaper names should be in italics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The citations need to be correctly formatted, i.e. there cannot just be a title and a url. There needs to be an author, date, name of publication, and (ideally) an archived version of the page too; see for instance the formatting style at the GA-rated Brian Williamson article, which similarly relies heavily on press websites. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use of quotations is a little unstandardized and haphazard. This needs to be dealt with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"As Director of Quilliam, Nawaz regularly attends events and conferences organised by government and security departments, think tanks, media houses, non-governmental organisations and academia" lacks any supporting citation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia eschews "Controversies" sections; this should be merged and incorporated into other sections of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These issues are not insurmountable, but acting upon them would significantly improve the quality of this article and would enable it to be rated GA. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been almost a month now and there's been no sign that any of my points have been acted upon, so I'm afraid that I'm going to have to fail this GAN. However, hopefully the guidance that I have provided will enable the article to be improved in quality, to the state where it could indeed be awarded GA status. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]