Jump to content

Talk:Sarkha/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Abo Yemen (talk · contribs) 11:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 02:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. 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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Discussion

[edit]

As far as I can see this is your first GAN, that is why I did not quickly failed the article evrn if it needs significant improvement to meet the six GA criteria, especially GA1b, GA3a, and GA4, and I think sourcing (GA2b) could also be improved. My principal concerns are the following:

  • (GA1b) According to our relevant rule, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article, in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Presently, the lead contains additional information in comparison with the main text, and the main text is not summarized in the article.
  • (GA3a) A reader who is unfamiliar with the background can hardly understand the article. The article should present the Houthi and their role in regional and international politics, especially their relationship with regional powers. The article should also explain each element of the slogan.
  • (GA4) The article fails to mention the view of those who are cursed by the slogan, and other (non-Hutsi) commentators.
  • (GA2b) Could you use some more academic sources to ensure that the article presents all relevant significant scholarly PoVs?

Do you think the above issues can be addressed in a week? Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka I'll try my best to fix the four main concerns above. I'll start with the lead first and add more background to the article. I'll also add more academic sources if I find any Abo Yemen 09:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found some academic sources that I could use. Should I add the background section before or after the design section? Abo Yemen 18:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to introduce a background section, you should begin the main text with it. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
bet Abo Yemen 06:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka can I withdraw the nom? I think I am going to take much longer than that time to fix those issues. Ill renominate it when im done Abo Yemen 14:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
or place it on hold Abo Yemen 14:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I placed it on hold. Ping me when you have completed your edits. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(GA4) The article fails to mention the view of those who are cursed by the slogan, and other (non-Hutsi) commentators.
@Borsoka like a criticism section? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, a separate section is the best approach. Borsoka (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka Ok this is a bit funny but I did not find a single source criticizing the slogan itself. All the sources I've found criticize the Houthis and not the slogan and they go along the lines of "Houthis have that slogan; They are not good people" 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me, that suggests that the slogan is not notable enough. Borsoka (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article should also explain each element of the slogan
 Done 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I have no choice but failing the article. This could be an interesting article, but our relevant policies (such as WP:NPOV and WP:SOURCE) should be very rigirously followed taking into account the sensitivity of its subject. Perhaps you want to seek assistance at one of our wikiprojects (like Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics). Borsoka (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to fix all the problems and hopefully renominate this in the future. Thank you for the review! 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]