Talk:Bani Zeid al-Gharbia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 16:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Sorry for the lack of progress, I had intended to make a start on this review on 14th July but nothing happened.

I've now done a quick read of the article and it appears to be at or about GA-level: so I'm going to carry out a full review, starting at the History section and finishing with the Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• History -
  • Early history -

• The first sentence has a number of claims that are unreferenced:

• Deir Ghassaneh has been identified as the ancient Saredah (also spelled Zeredah), hometown of Jeroboam.
• According to some sources, it was settled by the Ghassanids, an Arab Christian tribal confederation, after it was abandoned by the Israelites
• However this claim has been dismissed by a number of researchers since the Ghassanids did not have a history of settlement in Samaria, the modern-day northern West Bank.

• I'm beginning to conclude that most of the statements in this subsection are unreferenced as most of the citations that are given are of the form "Deir Ghassaneh" means "monastery of the Ghassaneh" - a dictionary definition in a publication dated to 1881. Unfortunately looking at what is cited / verifiable all that it gives is that the two villages are at least as old as the second half of the 13th century, but the next subsection refers to the Siege of Jerusalem in 1187, and obviously the two villages existed at that time.

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Establishment of Bani Zeid in Palestine -

• There is some "confusion", perhaps not intentionally, due to Bani Zeid having two uses /meanings. Both the title of this subsection and majority of the material in this subsection is about the the Arab tribe of Bani Zeid (although the link is to the article Banu Zayd) and the land given to them. Since the article is called Bani Zeid, the Manual of Style tends to rule out Bani Zeid as a section / subsection title, but perhaps it could be retitled as the Establishment of the tribe of Bani Zeid in Palestine?

• Y Much better now. Pyrotec (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this subsection is OK.

• • Ottoman era -

• Again, there is some "confusion" in the first paragraph due to use of Bani Zeid. It claims that During the Ottoman era in Palestine, Bani Zeid was a nahiya ("subdistrict") of the sanjak ("district") .... Well that that time Bani Zeid was the name of a tribe not a town. The second paragraph makes it clear that there are two topics in this subsection: the nahiya headed by a sheikh and indiviual villages head by a ra'is; and the two villages "Deir Ghassaneh" and "Beit Rima", since they are mentioned and discussed both separately and together.

• Y Much better now. Pyrotec (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this subsection is OK.

...stopping for now to be continued over the weekend. Pyrotec (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be starting again tomorrow. (2nd August). Pyrotec (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Modern era -

• This subsection looks OK.

• Geography -

...stopping for now to be continued tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• This section looks OK.

• Demographics -

• This section looks OK.

• Economy and education -

• This section looks OK.

• Government -

• The http://www.west-bzm.org based web link for references 34 and 55 are broken, both give a "404 error" message. That link works, but it's not in English so I don't what it says.

• I replaced the dead links with archives. They don't look as pretty as the original website, but all the info is there. Unfortunately, I couldn't get the English version (it's still 404). But I added in the refs that the language is Arabic. A rough automatic translation is provided by Google Chrome. I guess for the time being that's the best I can do. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise, this section looks OK.

• Culture -

• This section looks OK.

• WP:Lead -

• This is a lead of two paragraphs and the first paragraph is good (perhaps very good). Overall, the lead is perhaps a bit "thin" for an article of this lead. Perhaps, the second paragraph could be improved / expanded a bit.

• The Israel occupation is there (as expected) in the second paragraph and the Ottoman's are covered in the first. Perhaps the British Mandate problems might be mentioned (in the body of the article, this topic occupies about half the space devoted to the Israel occupation)?
• The second paragraph is also two (unrelated) half's: perhaps the second half which is concerned with economy / occupation could be split off into a paragraph of its own and slightly expanded? For instance the use of olives is known to go back to soap-making in the mid-16th century.
• These are just suggestions of how the Lead might be improved. Pyrotec (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions, I modified the lead accordingly. Let me know if there's something else I should add to it or rewrite. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Great, thanks. I'm not going to around tomorrow and this has been a long review because I'm not been on wikipedia for several days at a time, so I'm going to pass it as it is. Pyrotec (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An informative and well referenced article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality, no copyvios, spelling and grammar:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I've enjoyed reading this article and I'm pleased to be able to award it GA-status. I seem to have reviewed quite a few of your WP:GAN nominations over the last five years, so congratulations on another GA. Pyrotec (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Pyrotec. It's been a pleasure working with you, as always. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)