Talk:Deim Zubeir

Comment

A town, not a surname.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Darfur JEM.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deim Zubeir/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WhinyTheYounger (talk · contribs) 00:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	* There are some places where sentences are wordy or lacking commas or otherwise need revision; I've fixed a few as I have been going along * At times the extensive reliance on quotations means that there is language that is not easily understandable to a non-specialist reader (see WP:TECHNICAL). For example, While Dar means 'home of', Fertit does not describe any ethnic group, but was at the time a pejorative "catch-all word for non-Fur, Arab, non-Dinka and non-Luo groups of Western Bahr El Ghazal" may puzzle a reader unfamiliar with the FUr or Dinka or Luo. In general, the article as it stands now relies somewhat too heavily on quotations when accurately sourced paraphrases may do; in this example, it could be paraphrased perhaps as "a generic pejorative for outsider ethnic groups" according to _____ (it's unclear what ethnic group lived in Dar Fertit from this part of the article). * Overall, the prose tends towards a more flowing and somewhat narrative style rather than the WP:SUMMARY style required of optimal Wikipedia articles. See inline notes for more examples.
(b) (MoS)	* Per the WP:MOSTYLE, quotes should not be italicized * Not every proper noun needs a Wiki-link; per WP:REDLINK, In general, a red link should remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article. It is okay to sometimes relay facts without naming the specific author or historian. * The lead section as written now does not summarize the article's content well, and there is information in there (i.e. about variant spelling and about a 1996 linguistic study) that is out of place and needs to be reflected in the body if it is going to be included in the lead at all (which, particularly in the latter case, seems questionable) * Formatting is unclear — as it stands, the article is basically all one big chunk under "history". How else can it be broken up? What other information (current demographics, geography, politics and governance, if applicable) might be added? At present, much of this information is slipped incidentally in under the history section, but look at some other cities and towns' articles (even non-historic ones) for a rough idea of what other sorts of information is included and how it is organized.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	At numerous points there are citations to entire articles or even longer works. Particularly for specific quotes, page numbers are needed. In some instances it seems these are bundled together in a single citation (e.g. citing pages 10, 100, and 300 or something like that), but this should be avoided as much as possible.
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	At a few points there are citations to historical autobiographies used to make claims about the place (e.g. that it was a regional slave trade "clearinghouse") that either need attribution or reevaluation, given that we should prefer peer-reviewed secondary sources over primary sources when possible. See also: the citation of an ornithologist regarding the name of the area: is this reliable?
(c) (original research)	Not a critical issue, but the aforementioned reliance on primary sources is a point of concern.
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyvio issues found (but lengthy quotation sections present stylistic and content issues)

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	As detailed above, the rich coverage of the history comes at the cost of clarity about the settlement at present. Its current population and other such demographics are not discussed until deep within the article, and other features commonly discussed when it comes to active settlements are ignored as well. Language, for example, is sprinkled in a few places throughout, whereas language forms a core section of most other well developed cities and settlements' demographics sections.
(b) (focused)	The historical focus tends to meander, as discussed inline with the case of Al-Zubeir Rahma Mansur, whose relevance is not clear at all when he is introduced, and not apparent for several paragraphs. Wikipedia:Summary style can be tricky, but should be employed to a much greater extent here. (Part of that includes avoiding overreliance on quotes as well, particularly block quotes, when summary and paraphrase will do. This can also be used to avoid introducing vocabulary that may confuse the reader, for example, "Jellaba"

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
No major neutrality issues; coverage of contemporary conflict is well done in this respect.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Stable.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	At least one image might represent a copyright issue while lacking a fair use explanation, which I have nominated for deletion (File:MarkNgangaKamau-DeimZubeir2017 ICRC-AVarchives V-P-SS-E-00999.jpg.
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The use of images is laudable, but there are simply too many that have little, if any, relevance to the article's topic. The portrait of every single explorer, ruler, leader, etc. mentioned in the text stacks up and becomes a bit excessive, such that it interferes with spacing of the text as it forces all of the images into columns on either side of a browser screen. Some are not at all clearly related and have captions that do not explain anything (like the "NEW SUDAN" image)

Result

Result	Notes
	There is clearly a lot of work that has been put into this fascinating topic, and that's fantastic! With some more elbow grease, this can absolutely become a Good Article. I'll keep adding some more notes tomorrow inline, but I figured I'd go ahead and publish this review to give an idea of the issues I'm seeing. Please feel free to reach out here or on my talk page if there are any questions!

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• MarkNgangaKamau-DeimZubeir2017 ICRC-AVarchives V-P-SS-E-00999.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)