Talk:Dubai/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 20:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "See also" section is too long. Any links that are already in the article, such as History of Dubai, do not need to be in the "See also". There should be an effort to incorporate any others into the article.
There are numerous {{dead links}} in the references. This must be fixed.
Numerous references are bare urls. These should be formatted, either by using reference templates such as {{citation}} or {{cite web}}, or by hand.
There are too many images; there is a huge white space in my browser caused by extra images.
Per WP:LEAD, the content of the article must be summarized in the lead in proportion to the weight it is given in the article.
The text should be edited so that the prose flows. Too many short (two or three sentence paras make for a choppy read).
I will put the article on hold while you address these issues. Then I will complete the review.

Xtzou (Talk) 21:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
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):
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:

I have made a few changes as per the suggestions

1. See also section has been shortened.

2. Dead links references have been replaced with working ones.

3. There are no more bare urls.

4. White space issue has been solved.

5. Lead section has been improved.

6. Small paragraphs have been condensed.

More comments

Good. I have been formatting some of the references. Some of them still were dead links but I found them in the Web Archive. I'm not sure that all of the references contain the purported information. But it is a start. I will look at the improvements you have made. Xtzou (Talk) 13:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There still are many dead links. You removed the {{dead link}} templates but you did not fix the links, see [1]
This image breaks the formatting and leaves a empty white space.

Xtzou (Talk) 15:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links have been replaced

Rearranged the images

Further Comments

(continuing)

Xtzou (Talk) 13:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have done very well in cleaning up this article. It will take me more time to go through it and verify the references really do source the informations. Also, to make sure it covers the relevant areas that an article like this should cover.
Also, I found another dead link and marked it. It needs to be replaced or the information it sources removed.

Xtzou (Talk) 19:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it is now working for me too! I will fill in all the reference parameters. Xtzou (Talk) 13:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winjay, you have done a wonderful job on this article. It definitley meets the GA criteria. Xtzou (Talk) 14:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused: }
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass!