Talk:Hassan Al Kontar/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chris.sherlock (talk · contribs) 16:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a really fascinating article! well written, but I do have some feedback.

• Should you note that United Arab Emirates is actually UAE - add after the first mention of United Arab Emirates UAE in parantheticals?

 Done

• can we get a reference for his birth date?

 Done I’d tried looking for a non-primary source for it because it was attributed to his Twitter page, so I think we can remove it and just put the birth year until a non-primary source becomes available.

• "There was some discussion of the Malaysian government offering him re-entry into the country but, with no formal offer, Al Kontar was advised not to because he was waiting for an offer for Canada, the United Kingdom, or France (as implied by one of his Twitter posts)."
  • Perhaps rephrase to "was advised not to accept"? Also, can we get a refenrece for the tweet?

 Done I can’t seem to find a tweet on that so for now it’s probably best to remove the sentence.

• "However, Malaysian immigration director-general Mustafar Ali announced that Al Kontar will be sent to a third country" - the tense seems wrong... this has already happened?

 Done I believe they kept that third country confidential, so it most likely didn’t happen ultimately. I found a source that explained that time period of events.

• Can we change "backstory" as a heading name? Perhaps it should be "background"? Not sure about this...

 Done

Otherwise, this is a really good article! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviewing the article. At first I was trepidatious about whether it could get there being relatively short compared to other sociology articles, but he’s got broad coverage so I took a leap of faith! ⌚️ (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn’t be concerned about length so much. I have written a few articles that aren’t terribly long, I think the main point is that they are comprehensive and cover the main points. Well done! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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

---

This is a nice piece of work, and after the changes above I believe a good article.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: