Talk:Omar Derdour/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 15:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This article is brief but well written and appears to cover the main aspects of Derdour's life; there's not that much information out there on him from what I can see in a Google Books, Scholar, and News search, and this article covers it. I've done some minor copyediting as I went for proofreading and style; please feel free to revert anything you disagree with. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few small points:

What is the "Ouled Abdi" that his family belongs to? Also, should this be written in past tense ("belonged"), or are we sure they're still members?

Reworded, Ouled Abdi is a valley in the foothills of the Aures, reworded, should be OK now. Might blue link that in the next few days.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Omar Derdour directed the AML Party's Federation in Constantine"-- could you include a sentence or so about the AML party's platform/beliefs? Since this was Derdour's main cause, it's worth making it clear.

Yes, quite relevant, I've added.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in wikilinking AML to Friends of the Manifesto and Liberty?

Yes, I think so.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I marked two dead links, but don't worry about that for GA purposes. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will ask Aymatth so look into that.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~One term needs clarification (above).~~ Most of the sources of the article are not accessible to me, but spotchecks of accessible sources show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Very brief, but appears to me to cover the main aspects. ~~I would suggest explaining in a sentence or two the beliefs/cause of his political party, the ALM.~~
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass--very good little article