Talk:Jabal Amman

Jabal Amman was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 5, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 19, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Jabal Amman is one of the seven original hills that Amman, Jordan was built on during the Neolithic period?

Jordan Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jordan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jordan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JordanWikipedia:WikiProject JordanTemplate:WikiProject JordanJordan articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks YOU can help with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Arab world Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jabal Amman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be the GA reviewer for this article. H1nkles (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Lead

Per WP:LEAD the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article covering all the subjects in the article. The lead is not developed and does not represent a comprehensive summary of the article. This will need to be addressed.

History

I questions comprehensiveness in this section.

Is there anything else that can be added here? There is the mention of several notable professions that moved onto the hill, are there some names of notable people who have lived on the hill?
What about notable events? Has it been involved in military actions or any other significant historical events?
Rainbow Street is used as a reference for this section. It isn't appropriate to use Wikipedia to reference itself.

Location and Architecture

I added a ^{[citation needed]} template at the end of the Architecture section. You'll need to reference the information there.

Jabal Amman Residents Association

I think more could be added here as well.

One of your references, the Jordan Times, refers to a charity run put on for JARA. This information could be added to the article.

References

The Jordan Times reference should have work, publisher, date, and author.
I question the fifth reference about Souk JARA leaflets. Who publishes the leaflet? H1nkles (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The primary source used in this article is Teller's Rough Guide to Jordan, which is a travel guide. See here, sources should be peer reviewed and the highest weight is given to academic articles. So I did a little research on the acceptability of travel guides and what I determined is that it depends on the publisher. Frommers, for example, is a well-respected travel guide. I don't know about Rough Guides, never heard of it. Normally I wouldn't raise the issue but since the article relies so heavily on this source can it be supported? Is the information found elsewhere? Say in google books, or does another travel guide have similar information? If you can support the credibility of Rough Guides I will accept that. I just want to make sure that the primary source for this article is reliable.
What is Old Houses of Jordan? Is this a book or a pamphlet? Is TURAB a publisher?

Overall Review

The primary issues with this article is as follows:

Comprehensive-There are sections that should be expanded with more information. The article is very short for a GA, and I think more could be added to bolster the article's information. Suggestions for additional information are listed above.
References-Some information needs referencing, the format for the Jordan Times reference needs to be improved, can't cite a WP article, the leaflet should be referenced better, the travel guide will be accepted if its credibility can be substantiated or the information is cross-referenced from another guide/book.
Lead-The lead needs to be expanded to summarize all the information in the article.

The prose and photos are fine. It is also stable and has a neutral POV. A lot of work needs to be done to bring this article to GA. I will hold it for one week to see if further work can be done. Happy editing! H1nkles (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no action on the article and so I will not promote it at this time. If work can be done on it please renominate it for GA. H1nkles (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]