Talk:Defeating ISIS/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 21:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

1a - significant problems with the prose:

• several run on sentences including "The work is organized into four sections where the author puts forth a thesis while grounding his argumentation in events throughout history providing the context of the evolution of ISIS over time."
• "Nance was an interpreter for Russian" "Middle East terrorism"??
• undefined pronouns starting a paragraph with: 'Defeating ISIS argues that the group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) does not belong to the faith of Islam, and he calls it a religious cult."
• two independent clauses separated by a comma "Nance discusses cultural differences within each locality, and details the practices of Boko Haram"

etc.

1b - overlinking some obvious ones are Arabic, Russian, think tank, Georgetown, France, Australia, Turkey, Mali, Algeria, etc. (all linking to broad country articles MOS:OLINK

2a - several OCLC citations need a full citation

2c - not sure how some of the content about the author relates to the book. It tells me he studies Arabic, but I have to infer that this is related to the topic of the book, or that it demonstrates his expertise for authoring the book. It is sourced to Iowa State University page about a lecture he is going to give. I would not consider this an independent source, as it is Iowa State University promoting a lecture at their school. Some attention to this would improve the article, I have added a link to an example of a GA-article for a non-fiction book at the end of the review.

3a - iffy. I think it is a little too concise and dense, and could benefit from some expansion. This would also help with the link density, which is currently overwhelming. I understand this is somewhat difficult in an article about a book.

4 - I'm concerned the article overemphasizes the author. Example, the last sentence of the article is "If you’ve read books like The Terrorists of Iraq and Defeating ISIS, you know Malcolm's expertise."

I can't pass this article at this time. The prose needs improvement, the overlinking is an issue, and there is too much emphasis on the author, which reads more like a resume for the author then directly connecting this content to the book (using WP:RS) I would recommend reviewing some Wikipedia:Good articles/Language and literature in this category, and maybe Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology which has a long section about the author.

Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: Since the article has only been live for 4 days, and has only one significant contributor, I can't really make a determination about stability at this time. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System:Cool username. Thank you for putting it as GA on Hold. I'll be working on your helpful suggestions, from above, and noting each one as "per GA Review" in my edit summaries. Sagecandor (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System:: Here's what I did to address your great recommendations, I noted "per GA Review" as relevant in my edit summaries:

1. Broke apart several sentences including "The work is organized into four sections where the author puts forth a thesis while grounding his argumentation in events throughout history providing the context of the evolution of ISIS over time."
2. Fixed sentence - "Nance was an interpreter for Russian" "Middle East terrorism"?? - Removed "Russian" as not as relevant to this article. Emphasized research on Middle East terrorism.
3. Fixed the undefined pronouns starting a paragraph with: 'Defeating ISIS argues that the group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) does not belong to the faith of Islam, and he calls it a religious cult." Broke apart sentence. Clarified the pronoun.
4. Broke apart the two independent clauses separated by a comma "Nance discusses cultural differences within each locality, and details the practices of Boko Haram".
5. Removed a great deal of the overlinking some obvious ones are Arabic, Russian, think tank, Georgetown, France, Australia, Turkey, Mali, Algeria, etc. (all linking to broad country articles MOS:OLINK).
6. Fixed all the OCLC citations that needed full citation.
7. Removed mention that author studied Arabic.
8. Removed citation to Iowa State University.
9. Significantly decreased the link density, which is no longer overwhelming.
10. Removed quotation, "If you’ve read books like The Terrorists of Iraq and Defeating ISIS, you know Malcolm's expertise."
11. Cut down on information about the author.
12. Removed Background section.
13. Emphasized cited information instead on research directly relevant to this book itself.

@Seraphim System:Maybe you can take another look now? Sagecandor (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks better. I would suggest removing the bibliography from this article. It is more appropriate for the author's article (and in fact, is included there). Also per WP:REPEATLINK, most links should not be repeated. Malcom Nance is linked in the lede, so there is no need to repeat the link. Under WP:WBA we discourage the use of "refers to" (see WP:REFERS) The author refers to ISIS as a religious cult. ... I don't think it's necessary to begin each sentence with "The author" or "Nance" for the section Contents summary. Varying it a little will improve the prose. Consider the example in Cyber Rights. Right now the prose is still a little clipped. Try to phrase this more neutrally backs up his viewpoint with past events ... I will look through the sources in more detail, but those are my initial comments. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System:Thank you for saying it looks better. These are yet more additional helpful suggestions, thank you. Here are some ways I addressed them:

1. Removed bibliography from this article.
2. Removed links to Malcolm Nance in body text.
3. Removed "refers to" in contents section.
4. Removed instances of "the author" and "Nance".
5. Removed "backs up his viewpoint with past events".

@Seraphim System:Perhaps you can have another look now and re-evaluate? Sagecandor (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I've already put it on hold so you have seven days before I close the review. I can tell you that I still see problems with basic prose and grammar - for example, paragraphs/topic sentences. The paragraph starts with "Nance identifies ISIS as a religious cult" but the rest of the paragraph is not related to that, or if it is, that is not clear from how it is written. We actually have very few GA articles, out of the 5,422,836 articles on Wikipedia, only 26,174 are categorized as good articles. Usually, this is because very few articles meet criteria 1a. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System:Thank you for this specific helpful input. I've removed that sentence from the article [1]. Seraphim System, I hope you can see here from this GA Review subpage that I have strived to address, point-by-point, every single one of your concerns, in cases where you have been specific. Do you have any other specific concerns that are actionable that I can address, please? Sagecandor (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It is much improved but good article development takes time. This article was created 4 days ago, It's had very few contributions from editors other then yourself. I see only a few minor edits from Neutrality (who is an experienced editor). My advice would be to give it some time and let other editors contribute to it before renominating it for GA. Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System:You have acknowledged the article is better due to my direct response to your recommendations. At this time, do you have any other specific actionable recommendations to address your concerns? Sagecandor (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

As a GA reviewer I can't be involved in the development of the article. I can't go through it and significantly revise it line by line, but I don't think it currently meet the 1a criteria, for reasons that I have already explained. GA is not a process where I set conditions on an article passing, I think the amount of revision it needs is beyond what I can specifically address within the scope of this review, including the paragraph/topic sentence issue that I already mentioned. Under WP:RGA I can not pass an article because it is improved, it has to meet the criteria. I also think it needs time for other editors need to work on it. How can we know it is stable when it has only been since June 8? Many articles are live for years before they become GA, and go through multiple rounds of review. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System:You are making up false criteria that do not exist. There is no criteria that says an article must 10 years old before nominating for GA. Sagecandor (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

You always have the option of asking for a second opinion. If you don't know how to do that, let me know, and I can change the template for you. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System:If you choose to ignore Good article criteria, and make up your own criteria out of whole cloth like "article must exist for X number of years", then I have no idea what you are doing as a GA Reviewer. Sagecandor (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I am simply letting you know that the standards for passing GA review are high. That is why only 26,174 out of our 5,422,836 articles have passed GA review. The criteria you have not met is 1a. There is no criteria for length of time. I am simply giving you friendly advice that many articles that fail the first round do pass subsequent rounds. You always have the option of asking for a second opinion. If you don't know how to do that, let me know, and I can change the template for you, otherwise I think we can close the review, unless you want to continue working on it for the duration of the hold. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System:Will it meet your arbitrary made up criteria of I-only-pass-articles-of-X-amount-of-time if we wait seven days? Sagecandor (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to ask for a second opinion or continue working on it during the hold period, because if not, I am going to close the review. Just to be clear, there is no rule that you have to wait any length of time to renominate it. You can ask for re-evaluation immediately, if you are confident that it meets the criteria. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to continue to willfully ignore Good Article criteria, and make up your own requirements about age of articles, then close it. Sagecandor (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will give you the full list of reasons in a separate section. I think what you are misunderstanding is that Stability is one of the criteria, and I can't evaluate stability on a 4 day old article. I will, however, ask for advice about this at the teahouse before closing the review. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphim System:Please just close it, now. Sagecandor (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Closing this review as withdrawn by nominator at this time. Sagecandor (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.