Talk:March of loyalty to martyrs/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk ·contribs) 23:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will review this article, since it's languished here in GAN for so long. As is my normal practice, I'll do a cursory review using one of the templates first and then review the prose more closely afterwards.

Hey, thank you for the review :) Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, andhere for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I have some minor issues with the prose and readability, mostly due to choppiness. For example, you need to vary the sentences a bit more.

Could you mention examples? Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to address the sourcing issues first. I think it's easier to simply copyedit, which I will if we get that far and if you consent. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
The sourcing is a big problem with this article. I'm tempted to quickfail it based upon them, but I hesitate because I believe in giving articles and their editors a chance to improve. Re ref 2: I've never seen this style of citing before; I assume that its source is p. 68 of the commission document. However, I don't see anything on p. 68 that supports it. Also, I don't see what any of the refs citing this document support. It's possible that I'm just missing it; please check and make sure the refs support what you want. I suggest, to make it look cleaner, to create a "Works cited" section, list the document there, and then cite the pages separately; like this: [1] I did some more ref checking, and many don't support the previous assertions. For example: Protesters resorted to Salmaniya Hospital's car parks where thousands of them protested against the government. Refs [2]:75[5][11][12] don't support this statement. They state other things that could be put into the article, though; I recommend that you write the article around the sources, or at the very least, find sources that directly support your statements. For example, the above-mentioned sources all discuss how the government punished injured protesters, something that's both important and interesting, but it's not even mentioned in the article. This kind of thing happens throughout the article.

I think you were checking the wrong pages. Page 68 for instance is 78 in the PDF file, but if you look at the bottom of pages you'll see correct page numbers. As for the mentioned example, I'll quote the parts of sources that support it:

BICI report (page 75 -85 in PDF-) [2]: At SMC, medical staff and other individuals began demonstrating in the car park adjacent to the emergency department. Many of those demonstrating were protesting the decision to clear the GCC Roundabout, and were expressing anger at a rumour that had circulated that the SMC administration was preventing ambulances from going to recover persons injured at the roundabout. By 21:00, the number of people gathered at SMC exceeded 2,500 persons.
The Guardian [3]: none.
MSF report page 2 [4]: Following a military operation against protestors on 17 February, many sought refuge in the Salmaniya Hospital grounds. Salmaniya was seen as a safe place for the opposition protestors to go. During this time, as the protests continued, wounded demonstrators were received in Salmaniya as well. When ambulances were blocked from reaching patients, the doctors at the hospital began leading protests themselves. Regardless of the reasons, health professionals making speeches and leading protests directly from the steps of the entrance to the hospital undermined the concept of a neutral hospital, as did the anti-government slogans painted onto the walls of the hospital.
The Guardian [5]: thousands of people who surged into the grounds of Salmaniya hospital. They had spent the day regrouping inside the grounds of the hospital after being evicted from the Pearl Roundabout by up to 500 officers who attacked them shortly after 3.15am on Thursday. Their numbers had grown to around 4,000 by late afternoon, rallied by calls through social media and by a restless middle class, which until now had not been prominent in protests.

Okay, things are cleared up for me now. The problem is that my browser (Chrome) doesn't include the PDF numbers. I suggest that you use the document's page numbers, since everyone will see them. I still think it's a good idea for you to go through the refs and make sure that they're citing what you want them to cite. Remember that WP is a summary of the sources out there. I believe that the sentence we're discussing is one of many examples in this article of using three references when one will do. I apologize for choosing the wrong example. I can find others, with similar problems, like this: At least 50 of them were released. Among the released were Ali Abdulemam, a prominent blogger and founder of Bahrain Online opposition forum as well as blogger and human rights activist Abduljalil al-Singace who called the move "a good step" and a "positive gesture". Ref 16 is fine; it correctly supports the statement. Ref 19 refers to the original arrest of the opposition, but doesn't talk about their release, so it's unnecessary. Ref 20 supports nothing in this sentence. Ref 21 states the same thing as ref 16; I'd pick ref 16 as more reliable, but that's just a preference. Ref 22 supports it, but it's not the source's main point, so I'd remove it. Again, this happens throughout this article and needs to be addressed. Also again, I'd still quickfail this article for this very reason. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm using Chrome as well (isn't it wonderful?), but I've got the document downloaded. Just to make sure you got me right, I use the page numbers as shown in the document it self (at bottom of pages), which are lagged by 10 pages from the PDF page count (because the first ten pages of the report are not numbered and numbering starts from the eleventh page, which would be cited as page 1 since that's written at bottom of it). I usually cite BICI report, because it has more details, but because it is such a huge report (500 pages), I also cite other source to assert notability and weight. I can see few instances in which sources need fixing so getting to that right away. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm done removing unnecessary citations. Currently there is no fact supported by more than two sources (except one in "Aftermath", but it's of good use). I believe all citations currently support mentioned facts. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can mention how the government punished injured protesters (and the medics who treated them - see Bahrain health worker trials) and I've done so in a number of articles, but those happened mostly at March and April of 2011 when the government took control of Salmaniya hospital. If you're looking for details about what happened on 14 February, see Day of Rage (Bahrain), 17 February, see Bahrain Bloody Thursday and for 18 February see Death of Abdulredha Buhmaid. I've included a summary of those events in the background section. If you think its short, then I can add a line or two to each.

You can also read the timeline section of Bahraini uprising (2011–present). I've written the "first phase" and "state of emergency" sections almost by myself, and it is likely that I didn't miss any important detail. This can help weight the significance of details on broader level. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think an aftermath section is warranted and I'll be writing it to satisfy the criteria below. Let me know about your feedback. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's ready now. I've not mentioned the punishment of injured protesters since it's disputed by the government, but there are too many details not mentioned as well such as: destruction of Shia places of worship, targeting the media, firing thousands of protesters from their jobs, excessive use of force and systematic torture. Do all of these deserve their own paragraph in the aftermath section? I don't think so, since it's supposed to be a summary. Anyone interested in reading about that should visit the main article or related articles such as Torture during the Bahraini uprising (2011–present), Bahrain health worker trials, Bahrain Thirteen, Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry etc. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanation. Remember, I'm coming to this review not knowing all that much about the Bahrain uprisings. I suspect that's the experience of most of your readers. It seems that this protest is one in a series of protests, some more severe and violent than others, that occurred in 2011. That was unclear to me; I wonder if it would help to explain that in your "Overview" section. Adding the "Aftermath" section was a good call. I also appreciate your response to my concern about the government's punishment of the protesters. The BICI report describes what happened to patients and health care workers after the other protests, not this one. I get that now, thanks for explaining it to me. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and it's called "Background", not "Overview" lol. I though it was clearly explained that previous protests didn't end up peacefully, hence we have in lead "Security forces were not present and unlike the previous protests, it ended peacefully". I also added that "the seven victims killed by police and army forces" were during previous protests. What I mean by "didn't end up peacefully" is not that the protest it self wasn't peaceful, but when police or army attack a peaceful protest, the situation is no more seen as peaceful. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Based upon my statements above, I think that you're missing a lot of important information reported on by the sources you cite.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It's hard for me to make a decision about this. The article seems pretty biased against the government, but the sources seem to all stack up against it. In other words, the evidence seems to support that the protests were warranted, and you need to represent that.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Great images, the best part of the article.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

This article has major problems that need to be addressed. Like I said above, I'm inclined to fail it, but I'll wait and see what the main editor does about it. I think this is an important topic that deserves a quality article, but it needs a lot of work. At this point, I usually go through the prose of the article's prose in my reviews, but I'll hold off on it for now. Good luck. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel much better about the changes made; it's much improved now. Thanks for fixing the sources, something that helped immensely. This now fulfills the GA criteria; I will go and pass now. There are still prose issues, but instead of spending time telling you what to do now, I'll go do a copy-edit with extensive edit summaries so you can see what and why I do. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, your review is well appreciated. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]