Talk:Foreign workers in Saudi Arabia/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 11:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't really mean to come and review this, but I got interested in the article, and ended up reading the whole thing. I figured I might as well, therefore, review it! The article is generally very well written and well-referenced. I've carried out a few spot-checks for copyvio and close para-phrasing, which reveal nothing, but on the whole I will AGF given that it is written by an editor of good standing.
The lead appears slightly short, although reading it, it does appear to adequately summarise the article, so I have no real concerns. The article does lack images, but it is unsurprising that there aren't any relevant images to include, so again there is no real issue there.
I think the linking in the article could be improved: a few terms are linked later in the article than their first use, or linked more than once: Western world, for example is not linked until the Composition and numbers section, despite being mentioned in both the lead and the Background and history section. The list of nationalities in the Composition and numbers section should be more consistent in the articles it links to: there are links to XXX in Saudi Arabia, the country itself (Yemen), the people (Egyptians) and XXX diaspora. I appreciate there is an inconsistency in which countries have each sort of article, but this could be confusing for someone following these links. There is an article on Egyptian diaspora that could be linked to, and Yemeni diaspora redirects to Demographics of Yemen#Diaspora, which would be more useful than Yemen for the link, possibly.
In the Background and history section, the third sentence begins "As a result, in the post-war years.." but there is no mention of which war. I assume the Second World War, but this should be made clear. Later in that section you place the term "guest workers" in quotation marks with little explanation of the term: is it simply a alternative phrase for "foreign workers"?
In the Abuse and scandals section, there is a link to Death row. I have no real issue with this, but the death row article is very US-centric, and actually specifies that the term only applies to English-speaking countries. It is only of a side concern to this review, but it does sort of render the link inappropriate to this article. In that section, there is discussion about "in the millions of riyal" having to be paid: it might be useful to provide a note giving a rough estimate of how much this equates to in USD? I also made a small copy-edit relating to the acronym HRW.
Although I have written lots, the issues with the article are only very minor, and I found the article very interesting, on a subject that I had no knowledge of at all previously. Well done. Harrias talk 11:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments! Replies follow
- Western world - Thought this would have been overlinking, but I guess "Western" (from the West) and "western" (from a westerly direction) may not be enough distinction, so linked. Removed later link
- Countries: All links should now either point to the country or the subarticle on said nationality in Saudi Arabia at first mention. Have removed several repeat links.
- Post-war years: Right, WWII. Done
- "guest workers" - Linked to Guest worker program
- Death row: Can't think of another English-language term that sums up the concept as well (and note that several sources use it).
- Currency: Have added a short note using the rates given by Google
- Thanks muchly for the review, from me and my co-nom DeCausa. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for those fixes; I'm happy enough with the article now, although I note that there is still some inconsistency in the links to either a nation or "So-and-sos in Saudi Arabia", but it certainly isn't enough of a problem to hold up the review. Good work! Harrias talk 16:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for those fixes; I'm happy enough with the article now, although I note that there is still some inconsistency in the links to either a nation or "So-and-sos in Saudi Arabia", but it certainly isn't enough of a problem to hold up the review. Good work! Harrias talk 16:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)