# Talk:Aliqoli Jadid-ol-Eslam

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aliqoli Jadid-ol-Eslam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 18:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
I like the prose and you comply with the MoS.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Well referenced.
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Well-written article about an interesting person, I'm happy to pass as a GA.  I left a couple comments below but those are the only issues I found. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


### Comments
Lead: The phrase "major polemicist" should have a reference per GA criterion #2.b (direct quotation).  I'm guessing it's from Amanat but that's not clear from the footnote at the end of the paragraph.  I removed the phrase so as not to hold up the review, if you'd like to add it back just add a reference.
Works: You mention Esbat ol-nabovva in footnote b but not in the list of works, wouldn't hurt to add it to the list. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cerebellum: Thank you very much for your time. Excuse me for my belated response. I didn't add it (Esbat ol-nabovva) to the list on purpose as academics express uncertainties about the work. They also refrain from providing any in-depth information about the work (date of completion, etc.) unlike the listed works. Hence I felt a footnote was going to be sufficient, at least until new scholarly material is published. Cheers, - LouisAragon (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)