Talk:Faeq al-Mir arrest controversy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Consistency : Al Mir, al-Mir, Al-Mir. decide on one form and use it consistently.

 Done Now uses al-Mir consistently except when starting a sentence, which requires a capital "A".

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Ref #5 is not correctly attributed. It should be: Human Rights Watch, World Report 2008 - Syria, 31 January 2008, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47a87c15c.html. Notes #2 and #3 require some referencing.

1. I replaced the unchr link with a direct link to Human Rights Watch.
2. I have the references for both notes but don't know how to include them. Where do I place the citations? I tried placing one inside the note and received an error message.

1. I think if you just place a conventional reference and include a quote, rather than using the notes.

I removed the notes. Mnation2 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

1. OK, but the intorduction of ref #2 is not OK - You cannot cite other Wikipedia artciles. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   Woops, I didn't mean to indicate that. Amnesty International calls the party unauthorized and pointing to the Wikipedia articles was meant to clarify what that means in context. I removed the reference to Wikipedia articles and added a "See also" section. Mnation2 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

   OK, all OK now. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As of January 2008, Al-mir remains in prison but is expected to be released shortly. It is now November 2009 so this looks rather out of date.

I realize this, but there is literally no more information passed that point. Look at this google archive for the past year, for example: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&tbo=p&tbs=qdr:y&q=%22Faeq+al+Mir%22&start=0&sa=N

1. Is the Faeq al-Mir mentioned at [1] and here [2] the same person? If so it would indicate that he is free.

Probably, but I don't know how to say that without constituting original research. (The sources say someone named Faeq al-Mir commented on Syrian/American politics in 2008. They never say this person was previously imprisoned for a phone call and then released.) Mnation2 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

1. OK, perhaps more information will turn up in due course. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. 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):

   The Human Rights Watch logo is not at all necessary. It does not add anything to the artcile.

 Done Removed

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Just a few minor points above - on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for (finally) starting the review! Mnation2 (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes I am sorry about the delay but there are a lot of nominations and a relatively small body of reviewers. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

1. OK, all OK now. THanks for addressing my conceerns, I am happy to pass this as worthy of GA status. Jezhotwells (talk)