Talk:Mujib Rahman Ansari/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cessaune (talk · contribs) 05:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to review this. Cessaune [talk] 05:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

(This was really hard because I don't speak Persian, so forgive my lack of punctuality)

Well-written: N

I see a lot of places that warrant a , , way too many and such:

• Ansari was considered to be a Salafist or a Wahhabist preacher—by who?
• Ansari first became well-known in the mid-2000s—well-known in what area?
• Ansari officially aligned with the organization and attended several of the new government's meetings, becoming "one of the important figures of this group in Herat"—citation needed? Where did this quote come from?

In addition, the prose itself is a bit messy. Sentences are worded weirdly, and in some cases, a connection is assumed rather than stated (at what point does Ansari move to Saudi Arabia? He was only "pressured" to do so, yet the next sentence skips over the crucial fact that he actually moved due to the pressure.)

Verifiable with no original research: N

A few 'ghost quotations': Following a Friday service in which thousands of parishioners attended, Ferozuddin Feroz, the Afghan Minister of Health, stated that Ansari was "not a scholar but a murderer". It's somewhat sourced well, but , , and should be popping up everywhere.

Broad in its coverage: Y

From what I can see, it addresses the main points of his life pretty well, going into detail when necessary.

Neutral: ?

I mean, it's pretty negative, but I'm pretty sure that's just because there's a lot of negative things to say. The article includes a lot of commentary by those against Ansari, and comparably little by thos who agree with him.

Stable: Y

It's definitely stable, looking at the edit history.

Illustrated: ?

The infobox image looks suspiciously like an AI-upscaled photo, or even an AI-created one. I don't know. Also, I think there should be at least one more image in the body of the article somewhere.

Based on all this, this fails the GA criteria. Please come back with improvements, renominate this, and I would like to see it get to GA or even FA status. Cessaune [talk] 01:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

This really should've been put  On hold rather than outright failed. See further explanation at my talk page. The source issues are valid (an oversight on my part) and the WP:WEASEL wording is too, but these are pretty easily fixable; thanks for these constructive criticisms. However, more critically, the rationale for "Neutral" reeks of WP:FALSEBALANCE equivalence, and the rationale for "Illustrated" makes no sense, as the image was pulled directly from the RadioFreeEurope news article and the rationale disregards the following two words in the criteria: if possible. Regardless, thanks for your insight. Curbon7 (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Curbon7: The ? were my own opinion. I didn't fail it because of any of those; I only took into account the first two N. The sourcing was the real issue. I wasn't sure whether or not to fail it or put it on hold. Cessaune [talk] 17:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)