Talk:Hezbollah/Archive GA

GA nomination

This article is well-researched and informative, however, I think it does not yet meet criteron 5 at WP:WIAGA. A glance at the edit history reveals numerous content disputes, with over 50 edits in the past 24 hours. I think that the POV tag at the top of the article supports this assessment.

Despite what appears to be a substantial amount of disagreement, I think the editors involved have put together an exceptional article. I learned a lot about Hezbollah from this entry, and I look forward to supporting a GA nomination once disputes are resolved. —ptk✰fgs 13:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you completely.--Sa.vakilian 13:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination as a good article

I want to nominate this article as a good article. Please write your ideas here on the basis of Wikipedia:What is a good article?--Sa.vakilian 17:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - I respectfully oppose. This Article fails to meet the requirements of criterion No. 4 NPOV which is a pre-requisite for a Good Article Nomination. This Article is dominated by ONE POV. Lcnj 03:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support - The article is sufficiently NPOV (as evidenced by the fact that there is no NPOV tag anywhere in the article), but it still could be "pruned." The article is currently 98 kB. Wikipedia:What is a good article? says it should be closer to 25 kB. On the other hand, I wouldn't go so far as to say that 74% of the article needs to be deleted before it is a "good article." I've already begun pruning the article so that it is more to the point, but without compromising the content. --GHcool 05:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying the sections

I think this article will achieve Good article criteria if its references are verified again. Some of them were news sites which does not exist anymore. Some of them are irrelevant or unreliable sources. Thus I propose working together and do this boring work. Please write your name and section which you choose if you're volunteer.--Sa.vakilian 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GHcool:History--GHcool 19:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. --GHcool 21:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George.Saliba:Political activities — George Saliba^[talk] 08:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly gone through this section, trying to clean up a bit of the wording as I go. Most of the references seemed okay – I commented out one which didn't exist, but left another that was tied to an actual quotation. In addition, this section uses two sources which are questionable: Mideast Monitor and Global Research. They're both very biased sources, though they fall on different sides of the spectrum I guess, so maybe they balance each other out. If possible I'd suggest replacing these with more reliable sources. Cheers. — George Saliba^[talk] 09:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mceder:Military activities - mceder (u t c) 20:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bad references removed and replaced with fact tag. Fixed a few other ones, looks better now. mceder (u t c) 21:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sa.vakilian:Lead--Sa.vakilian 19:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly the documents which relates to "The Hizballah Program" ([1] and [2]) doesn't exist anymore . Also this [3] hasn't found.

There's a source which doesn't support the claim that "Hezbollah has popular support in Shi'a Lebanese society and has mobilized demonstrations of hundreds of thousands"[4] So I put {{cn}} instead.

What's your idea about this ref.[5] Is this NPOV? I think there are references which supports this idea while they're NPOV .--Sa.vakilian 15:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found 2 sources that support that "Hezbollah has popular support ..." and added the refs. --GHcool 17:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found concern reading the daily star quote in reference 75, and so followed this reference to a supposed article posted on a third party site. I had no reason to question the contents of this article, however reference 76 makes claims which are currently not verifiable by the reference link. If somebody could kindly research this, as I will attempt to do myself as well, it would be appreciated. I think this particular quote is important to the understanding of the Hezzbollah ideology, especially in that it seemingly contradicts the well documented notion of theirs that they are executing defensive Jihad. Please help me shed some light on this topic.

reference 75 states that Nassan vowed to pursue Jews outside of Israel, where 76 questions the viability of the reporter who published this article. Spragc 15:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/774649/posts 75] and 76. We've debated on this quotation at least 5 times but they were useless. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Thus I add {{check}} tag after them. --Sa.vakilian 18:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should finish our great work.

Sa.vakilian: Introduction. --Sa.vakilian 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
???????????: Ideology
Elizmr 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC): Media operations[reply]

DoneElizmr 20:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???????????: Social services
Mceder: Funding --mceder (u t c) 08:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. I also did Funding of Hezbollah and recommend we cover those as well.. It appears several named reference(i.e where the original reference is in another section, and the one in question just links to its name) did not make it in the creation of articles. A search in the Hezbollah article does bring the original info up. mceder (u t c) 09:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GHcool: Foreign relations --GHcool 19:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
???????????: Outside views of Hezbollah
Sa.vakilian: Social services

I'm done.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--06:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sa.vakilian:Ideology

I'm done.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--17:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just this section has remained.--Sa.vakilian 05:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sa.vakilian: Outside views of Hezbollah

I'm done.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article candidacy

I think this article will reach good article criteria as soon as we verify Hezbollah#Outside views of Hezbollah. Do you agree with me?Sa.vakilian(t-c)--17:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally verification of the facts and refreshing the sources ended. Now we can nominate it as Good article after a long and hard attempt to reach Good article criteria.

1- It is well written.
2- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
3- It is broad in its coverage.
4- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
5- It is stable.
6- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. ;) --GHcool 20:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a good article yet, as I haven't had the time to review it in depth, but I know it's made leaps and strides of quality thanks to Sa.vakilian and other editors. I think it's a good idea to nominate the article. At the very least we can get some feedback on points to look at further. — George Saliba^[talk] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There has been massive improvements since its last GA run, especially in regards to the stable part... mceder (u t c) 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it there.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous phrase in background section: "Even before this summer’s war". Summer of which year? NH summer or SH summer? -- Jesselong 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review - fail

This fails on the 'broad coverage' issue. It requires more than a link to the 'History of Hezbollah' article. Summarise the history article (content forking) with an even spread addressing he period 1982-present. Commendable coverage of the media operations and social services arms of the organisations. Good to see 'funding sources'included. General preparation and referencing of this article otherwise tremendous. For images I'd request a picture showing a Hezbollah member 'in action' (military, social welfare, TV/communications, parliamentary or other .. apart from the talking head of Nasrullah. BongHitz4Musa 04:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the?! Son of a! Oh well, back to work. All kidding aside, I agree with the above suggestions and thank BongHitzMusa for his/her attention. --GHcool 05:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't found such pictures which can be used in wikipedia and it's not necessary to do so.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GHcool for your attempts. I added some more information and references and I believe "History" becomes GA as well as other parts.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

The GA reviewer above was the sock of a blocked user DavidYork71. While their views may well be worth taking into account for improvement of the article, they have a history of disruption of articles related to Islam. As such, I have relisted the article without prejudice on GAC. Orderinchaos 08:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for relisting it, Orderinchaos. I actually think the history section is better now anyway. --GHcool 18:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

I have reviewed the article and think that it meets GA standards on all but a few things. I have therefore placed the article on hold and will explain things that I think need addressing to reach GA. On the whole though let me say that given the nature of the topic this was overall a neutral and well balanced article. Previous concerns as well have been addressed and article is stable.

The references in the article were on a whole excellent and theres no shortage. However the following needs a reference as it is a siginificant claim, or possibly more than one:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 called for the disarmament of militia with the Taif agreement at the end of the Lebanese civil war. Hezbollah denounced and protested against the resolution. The 2006 military conflict with Israel has increased the controversy. Failure to disarm remains a violation of the resolution and agreement, but a significant minority of Lebanese consider Hezbollah's weaponry a necessary and justified element of resistance.

and earlier in the article:

Ending Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon was the primary focus of Hezbollah's early activities - please reference

Status of the image Katyushalebanon.jpg? Fair use? Criteria states Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Fair use images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly. This image is nominated for deletion and fair use is not explained. Suggest removal from article. Other images are fine.

Please rewrite the following statement, adding a reference and whats with the 10s of, tens...

Hezbollah's financial support is a matter of controversy. Critics argue it is, or has been, massively supported with 10s of millions of dollars annually from the Islamic Republic of Iran

Other things that I would recommend is expand the following statement, though not for GA but just to improve, i.e. give a few examples:

Its Reconstruction Campaign ('Jihad Al Binna') is responsible for numerous economic and infrastructure development projects in Lebanon.

Thanks LordHarris 18:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments. I'll get started as soon as I can. --GHcool 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think these problems has solved.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA approved. Good work on responding so fast! I'm afraid I cant really suggest things to improve, as the references and the breadth of the article are fine. If you consider to nominate for an FAC, I suggest asking for a peer review beforehand. This will be a good way to identify things to improve on. Anyway good work! LordHarris 12:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awards According to this table [11] I'll give a branster to whom has most participation in this article comprising JiHymas@himivest.com, Elizmr and GHcool with more than 200 edits. Furthermore I intend to give award to Mceder and George.Saliba who have helped us to reach good article criteria. I appreciate others especially Reddi, Banzai!, Bertilvidet and Doug Danner who have editted this article more than 100 times. God bless all of you.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 16:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]