Talk:Paulos Faraj Rahho/GA1

GA Review

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

I'll be doing the GA review for this article. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

1. Lead section: This could be improved by adding a little more information. He seems to be primarily known in the context of his death- adding something to that effect would be an improvement.
   1. Added a sentence about his death and the attention it received to the lead.
2. Two minor source issues. Neither are particularly important to the article, and could just be resolved by removing them if a source isn't readily available.
   1. Don't see the source for the presence of particular Bishops other than the Patriarch when Rahho was consecrated Bishop; this detail didn't seem to be present in any of the sources.
   2. The idea attributed to Ishtar TV that Rahho was moved during his captivity- didn't find a source for this claim, either. Since there's speculation that he died shortly after the kidnapping, moving him around seems a little odd.
      1. Deleted both of these claims. Both could be restored with a proper source.
3. Quote section: I think that the MOS generally discourages quotes sections, preferring that quotes be worked into the text where they provide encyclopedic information, and moved to Wikiquote otherwise. The current articles about Ben Franklin, Winston Churchill, etc., lack dedicated Quotes sections, despite their being some of the most quoted people in the English language. In my opinion, this section would be better off in Wikiquote, or deleted if Wikiquote does not want it. I don't believe either quote is very well known outside of the context of this single incident.
   1. Deleted this section, and incorporated the quotes into the main text.

I fixed a few grammatical problems, and made sources a little more clear in cases where the information was in the source, but the citation was attached to a sentence above or below it in the article.

--Clay Collier (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Good article which covers the most significant aspects of its topic. A few issues with sources needed to be cleared up, but the article is in good shape going forward.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The section on concerns about Sharia law could use another look- one or two sentences could flow a little better, but overall quite good.

   B. MoS compliance:

   I removed the Quotes section, integrating them into the article as Quotes sections have been deprecated for some time.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   One or two issues here, but they were pretty easy to correct. First, make sure that anything that is a statistic, published opinion, etc. is clearly referenced- in a couple cases, there was a reference for the material presented, but no citation had been attached to that particular item. Second and more seriously, in three or four cases, material was cited but was taken verbatim from the original source without quotation marks, or was incompletely paraphrased. I corrected all of these that I found by adding quotes or repairing the close paraphrase. Editors who will be working on this article in the future are advised to read Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:FCDW/Plagiarism. It's something that is easy to do incorrectly if you're not familiar with the exact guidelines, but it is as important as sourcing and following copyright with respect to maintaining the credibility of an article.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   All of the bases are covered. Future expansion could add more biographical detail about the subject, or examine his death in the broader context of Christian persecution in Iraq.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Good article. There were a few issues initially, but all of them were pretty easy to solve. The only one that was of real concern to me was the copy & paste from the source articles without quotation or paraphrase; keep on top of that and the article should be good.