Talk:Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) 14:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I would recommend posting to the Guild of copy editors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	~~See comments on neutrality.~~
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It took me a matter of minutes to find sources which disputes various things in the article, Refugee Repatriation: Justice, Responsibility and Redress p201 ought to be used in this article, "While Bangladesh, Pakistan, UNHCR and various scholars contend that the Biharis are not refuges in the strict sense of the 1951 convention researchers such as Sen argue the Pakistan's unilateral denationalisation of the Bihari minority and its refusal to allow a broad right of return may be interpreted as acts of persecution sufficient to establish refugee status" The lede should also mention the legal status of these people, from Minority Rights in South Asia p101 "The supreme court of Bangladesh had to confirm that Biharis are citizens of Bangladesh and the mere fact that a person opts to migrate to another country cannot take away his citizenship" Dealt with
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is far from stable with edit wars occurring regularly.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Sorry, but I have to fail the article at this time. No improvements have been made since the suggestions by Drimes, please follow his suggestions and wait till the guild of copyeditors have gone through the article before nominating it again.

Discussion

1a. It was recently copy-edited by Yunshui. I have referred it to the Guild too, for more improvements.

3a and 4. Neutrality was excesssively discussed by the most active editors of the article, an RfC was also run. The discussion has lead to final stability of the article, although some issues arise sometimes, the article is neutral overall.

5 The edit-wars were once common, becausing some editors intended to own the article. Anyway, they are not occuring. The article is stable. You were the editor closing the RfC, which marked the article as neutral, removing the redundant tags.

6 There are no images which I could find appropriate or suitable for inclusion. The events unfortunately did not get significant media coverage/attention. Anyway, no images are there currently.

I am trying to fix the issues related to improvement. But the edit history of the article can show whether it is stable or not. I was a bit busy at job, but will try to get it elevated to GA. Further guidance for improvement is expected. Fai zan 16:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2,818 articles currently in the backlog of the Guild. It may take time to get it further improved bu copy-editing. Fai zan 16:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please incorporate the sources and content I have suggested in the review, although you think the article is stable it does not appear to be, but I am taking my time on the review in the hope that it will stabilize. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will try my best. Fai zan 16:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the text suggested at 4th attribute. Fai zan 16:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need paraphrase this as it is a copyvio, sorry, I thought I had it in quation marks above. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops yeah. I am giving it a finishing touch. Fai zan 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried close paraphrasing here. You can also help here. Now are we finished with 4th attribute? I am now trying to get a tick for the attribute 2b. Fai zan 15:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will finish the improvements tomorrow, will try to get it as early as possible to GA. There have been 2 months on the DYK nomination. The promotion of GA may get it to DYK too. Can you get a review tommorrow? Fai zan 15:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A glance needed at developments related to 2b and 4 attributes. Secondly, Isn't the article stable? The conflicts seem to have been stopped. Any hope for attribute 5? Fai zan 15:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Some researchers like Sen"? Sen who? Needs to be clarified as someone will without a doubt stick a who tag there. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know this Sen too. There is no clarification available, I had gone through a number of searches for Sen. What about redacting the terms? Getting it to "Some researchers...." only? What about other attributes? Fai zan 17:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is Sumit Sen, you can learn all about him here I am doing some copyediting, and the way the sources are cited seem to vary, I will likly change the entire format of citations later today. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I have formated all the refs, none were formated correctly. I have added a CN tag, and a few RS tags. I also did some minor copyedits and removed some duplications, you owe me a beer or several

. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quote given above is visible in Google Books here, and the citation here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I am fixing the RS and CN tags. Thanks for the refs Smint! Fai zan 16:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So five days after I tagged some stuff it remains unresolved, this review really cannot be held for much longer. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will pass today, I had no internet. Main issues are resolved, it is stable. Told you to have a look on the attributes. The references will be fixed within 5 min. Fai zan 16:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to add that " Darkness Shines (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am going to add it. Fai zan 16:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, no need to paraphrase it BTW, I wrote it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am thankful. Fai zan 16:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the text in the aftermath section. Is it good there? Otherwise move it. Anyway, there are no tags left related to references. Can expect strike? Fai zan 17:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1a. I am fed up of 1a. It was recently copy-edited by Yunshui. See this. The Guild seems very busy. Yunshui improved it extensively, see his edits in the article. You also did some copy-edits, and User:Drmies did too. I think 1a can go ahead with a tick too? There is huge backlog in the guild. Fai zan 02:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: even the lead isn't up to GA snuff. I'll prove it in a few edits. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copy-edits anyway, it will aid in attribute 1a. Fai zan 03:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness copy-edits Fai zan 04:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rehash a point from the earlier DYK nomination: I think the article should a. define more clearly what "persecution" is being talked about (during the war or also after it?); it's a point I tried to address in a minor way by tweaking the lead. And b. it should more clearly present evidence of persecution. I find that the phrasing and set-up of the "nationality issue" is not very clear, and I am still surprised that, if so many thousands of people were murdered, why there's only a few sentences in there. I mean, it's ethnic cleansing; surely there is much more information about possible planning, incitement, media attention, execution, punishment afterward (or lack thereof) for killers, et cetera. Until such information achieves due weight, I couldn't possibly sign off on GA status. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having reread the article yesterday before getting langers and having a tantrum I had come to the same conclusions, I will be looking for sources later today. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool up DS! I will also try to get the article improved further as Drmies suggested. Fai zan 16:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination failed? Wtf? He said: "I will look for sources", there was only 1a or copy-editing left, then how the nomination failed? Ludicrous. Wait for the guild to copy-edit the article. Fai zan 06:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is not only with the copyedit. As Drmies pointed out, the article lacks due information about the actual persecution.--Zayeem ^(talk) 13:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]