Talk:Akmal Shaikh/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 16:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

There's some tags - citation and POV - so this may be a tricky review, however I have respect for the nominator Ohconfucius, so I will take this on. SilkTork *^YES! 16:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some working toward consensus on including some material, such as the sexual harassment issue, but there have been no edit wars. Indeed, it is good to see people working together to achieve consensus on difficult subjects, such as this one. SilkTork *^YES! 11:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is one image, used appropriately and tagged with a fair use rationale. SilkTork *^YES! 11:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a NPOV tag. Issues relating to that need to be sorted. SilkTork *^YES!

The lead would need to be developed. The lead mentions the last incident in his life, but gives none of the background life. Summarise the Biography section at least, and include more details from the other sections. The WP:Lead should be able to stand on its own. SilkTork *^YES! 11:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a good number of references. I haven't checked through the references yet, and I note that there is still a cite tag in the article, so that is a fail. When I have checked the references I will be able to asses if the article is OR. SilkTork *^YES! 11:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is clear. The meaning is conveyed, and there are no jarring punctuations or spelling errors. The first mention of SINA should explain what that is. The section dealing with the drug trafficking starts part way through the story. The last paragraph of Biography should be moved to drug trafficking. A brief summary of the different views regarding the execution should be foregrounded in the Reaction to execution section. And such a summary also placed in the lead. More details of the appeals and China's own stance should be given in the lead. Without the statement from the Chinese Embassy in London mentioned in the lead, and inclusion of some of the supporting views, such as Tony Parsons of the Daily Mirror, the lead could be seen to be biased. It currently reads as though China have unfairly executed this man, when the text could also lead to a conclusion that they upheld their own laws and took a stand against drug trafficking. Some awareness of the history of British involvement in opium trafficking in China might be helpful, so a link to Opium Wars could be considered. SilkTork *^YES! 11:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the major aspects of the man's life, and the main details of the drug trafficking incident have been covered, and there is no undue focus on any one aspect. SilkTork *^YES! 11:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the drug trafficking could be clearer. Perhaps a short overview, and then the details of the background, followed by the arrest and then the trial. SilkTork *^YES! 11:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

The review is on hold for seven days to allow time to address the above issues. Specifically:

Expand lead per WP:Lead
Ensure article is balanced per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Ensure that all contentious statements are cited to a reliable source per Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:RELIABLE

I will address some of the minor prose issues myself over the next few days. Any questions, please get in touch. SilkTork *^YES! 12:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV tag is still on the Clemency campaign section. As there has been considerable work done on building the lead I will extend the hold for another seven days, though the NPOV issue needs to be sorted within that time. SilkTork *^YES! 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

Sorry for delay in getting back to this. I have been rather ill for a few days. I am quite happy with the developments on this, and it does appear to be a well balanced and neutral article. The references do check out. I have been through and tidied up here and there. But I have paused at the Reaction section. This is rather large, and contains quite a lot of direct quotation. I am in favour of direct quotation, though there is a point at which it can become excessive, and I feel that the Reaction section has crossed that point and become rather too dependent on it. See Wikipedia:Quotations for helpful advice, and trim back the amount of quotation, and the section in general. A decent summary of the reaction is more useful to the general reader than a comprehensive essay. Once that section is more digestible, I'll pass this. SilkTork *^YES! 01:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions section

I have been keeping an eye on this article and note that there has been no progress on reducing the Reactions section. This is a shame as the article is so close to passing GA. I am not unwilling to tackle the section myself, though my attention has been caught up in several other areas of Wikipedia recently. I am extending this GA review for another seven days, and will prod people to get involved in reducing the amount of quotation. SilkTork *^YES! 14:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed

I have reduced the direct quotes, and summarised the Reactions section into something more manageable and appropriate. This article now meets GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]