Talk:Nabulsi soap/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article has been extensively (and in my opinion ably) rewritten following the discovery of copyright issues and a rewrite of same. While it may still be a good article (and I hope it is), it seems like a good idea to reassess, since the content now is very different than the content when it passed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want this to go through community reassessment or would you rather do an individual one? AIRcorn (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
My main concern was broadness given the size of the article. However nothing struck me as missing and a google search did not turn up any major unmentioned issues.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Suggestion If the copyright status of File:Nablus 1898.jpg is problematic, it could be replaced by File:Tristram142a.jpg which also shows the city in the 19th century, or File:Twilight in Nablus 154 - Aug 2011.jpg, which shows Nablus today (The soap is still being made there today, so it's not irrelevant). In fact it might even be a better choice, since it's quite a lovely photogtaph and in colour, which gives more visual variety to the page. Voceditenore (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]