This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
I've checked the article and cannot find anything to suggest a lack of "Neutral Point of view". if there is no objections then I wish to submit the article for review. AmeeraFaarisa (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the article for neutrality and can't find anything wrong with it. I've have also checked all the references and done Google searches to check that the article fairly reflects the published sources. if you have also done the same is there any evidence you can provide for lack of neutrality. AmeeraFaarisa (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: I didn't and don't see anything serious enough to preclude mainspacing. I am happy to look at it further, but overall there seems to be a balance of statements, for example, UK government view/other views, and both positive and negative trivia, e.g.: the citizenship revocation details. The tone can perhaps be worked on more, but the inline sourcing is all there and the overall quality of the writing is reasonable. On the subject of the maintenance tags, past and present, why are there no discussions on talk about suspected sockpuppetry or paid editing? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the page's origins, it has now been tempered by several editors, including yourself, and the sourcing and notability are hardly in dispute. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
