Talk:Death of Abdulredha Buhmaid/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 13:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to reviewing this article and the subject is one with which I am very familiar. I expect to provide a comprehensive analysis and assessment within the next 48 hours. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is an excellent, informative, well-sourced article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Well written account of the incident, international reaction, and the aftermath of the incident.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   I believe the article is compliant with MOS and related guidelines

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   This article benefits from being more than adequately footnoted and a very broad, comprehensive selection of reference materials. While several of the references are in Arabic (many from Middle Eastern news periodicals, including Al-Wasat), they provide excellent support for the article--and their content being supported by coverage of the incident in Western news articles.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Very well-referenced article. Refer to 2a.

   C. No original research:

   I do not notice any "original reseach" problems.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   This article covers all aspects of this very tragic, specific event and very adequately discusses Buhmaid's death in the larger context of the entire Bahraini Arab Spring uprising. It relies on a broad array of sources to provide a comprehensive treatment of the subject.

   B. Focused:

   This article is focused and well organised.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   I believe the coverage is generally fair and unbaised. I do think the coverage of Buhmaid in the media and public opinion has come a little too close to hagiography, but the tone of the article is generally well reserved and objective. I think there should be a little more weight given to the government's version/interpretation and an appropriate analysis. But the government side of the argument is represented--this is not substantial enough a complaint to halt GA promotion, only a suggestion for future improvement of the article.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   I do not see any indication of any recent edit wars or content disputes (within the last 6 months)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Images included do not present any obvious copyvio issues.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Several relevant images with appropriate captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Congratulations to you and to your work on a well-written, informative article that deserves promotion to Good Article status.