Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

This article has been a GA for some time now. I'd like to take this article to FAC in the near future, so some feedback on what shortcomings remain would be very helpful. jaco♫plane 04:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't read the article in detail yet (again). But I noticed that many quotes were translated without the original Dutch text besides it. Garion96 (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah good point, I'll add the original Dutch quotes in the refs. jaco♫plane 05:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yannismarou

A nice informative article. It is a GA (I agree with that), but I don't agree with the A-Class rating for the Biography Project. It has some serious layout, stylistic and content flaws. I have also some POV concerns, I'll make clear later. For FAC it need much more work. These are my suggestions:

I think in the lead you are getting into to many details. To be more exact: My personal opinion is that you should merge the last two pars of the lead and remove some details. We'll learn about these things later. In the beginning, just give us the framework. Not a day by day narration.
When you refer things for the first time, give us a brief explanation. For instance, "Muslim Brotherhood". What is that? The link is not enough. I'm a lazy guy! I don't want to link all the time! You get my point?
"Hirsi Ali maintains that in 1992 her father arranged for her to marry a distant cousin living in Canada." Inline citation here? Which is your source?
Sometimes you wikilink twice the same link. For instance, political asylum. Check that. Once is enough!
Section "Pre-political career" begs for citations. I also don't like some short paragraphs there. You could merge them or expand them.
In the first three paragraphs of "Political career" I also nee citations. And I also see some one-sentence paragraphs. Such paragraphs are not recommended. They are not nice for the article flow. Merge or expand. I think "Political career" needs a throughout polishing to make the prose more coherent.
"publicly stated her real name and date of birth in a September 2002 interview published in the political magazine HP/De Tijd.[14][15][16]" Three inline citations in a row are too many.
Try to have the inline citations at the end of the sentence and not in the middle, so that the article flow is not interrupted.
Section "The citizenship controversy" also needs some rewriting because of the stubby paragraphs.
"She claims to be a great admirer of one of the party's ideological leaders Frits Bolkestein (former Euro-commissioner). Ali received substantial criticism as a result of her defection from the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA) to the VVD. By way of response she has asserted that she will show greater loyalty to the VVD. She claims that her personal views are for the most part inspired by her change from a Muslim to an atheist. Hirsi Ali is very critical of Islam, and especially of the prophet Muhammad and the position of women in Islam." She claims ... She claims ... She claims ... Ok! But where are your sources? Inline citations!
an atheist [1]. Not a nice way to link external links. This is better: an atheist.
"Circumcision" is stubby. Expand or merge.
"Freedom of speech": stubby.
"Freedom of education": stubby.
"Development aid": stubby.
"Terrorism": stubby.
I'm also concerned about the quote boxes (especially the long ones) throughout these sections. They are all gathered in this small part of the article and are not good for the article flow. You could incorporate some of them within the prose, expanding this way some of the stubby sections and trying also to offer some additional sources besides form Ali's own wording.
"Criticism of Hirsi Ali" is under-developped. This section is crucial for the article. It needs expansion; otherwise your article is POV. You over-present Ali's own opinions and, on the other side, you under-analyse the criticisms against her. Right now, you don't keep a nice balance.
Get rid of "Trivia section". Incorporate its content in the main article. Such sections are no more recommended.
Turn "Awards" into prose. As it is now, it is a listy section and you'll get criticized if you go for FA. You should also have got criticized in GAC. If I was the evaluator in GAC, believe me, you'd have a hard time!
Turn also "Bibliography" into prose. As it is now, it also listy and a bit stubby. Further analysis and inline citations would be welcomed.
The external links are for me toooooo many. I'd recommend you keep the most important ones. For instance, are all these interviews of her necessary? Keep what is really necessary for the readers.--Yannismarou 06:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, that should keep me busy for a while :) jaco♫plane 16:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]