Talk:Muslim women in sport/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  18:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   "Muslim women have been involved in sport" - should not be emboldened

   There's an improper synthesis tag in the Volleyball section

   "Other notable women's national volleyball teams from the OIC include Azerbaijan, Algeria (who were African champions in 2009 and gold medallists at the 2011 All-Africa Games), and three-times African champions Tunisia." - this needs a citation

   "Women's tennis is rapidly growing in popularity within OIC member states. As of 2016, there are Women's Tennis Association (WTA) Tour events in Malaysia (Malaysian Open, Kuala Lumpur; inaugurated 2010), Morocco (Grand Prix SAR La Princesse Lalla Meryem, Rabat; 2001), Qatar (Qatar Open, Doha; 2001), Turkey (Istanbul Cup; 2005), the United Arab Emirates (Dubai Tennis Championships; 1993), and Uzbekistan (Tashkent Open; 1999)." - I'm not sure if this needs sourcing, so feel free to ignore this point

   " Reporters also frequently alluded to exotic sexuality of Muslim female athletes, fetishizing both their covering and their bodies" - this is not in the source

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No original research found. AGF for offline sources

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.:

   Yes, it is stable

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:

I can see that this is well researched and documented, but I did manage to find a few issues. I'll leave this on hold until all of the above are clarified. Please let me know if you found anything unclear. JAGUAR  16:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I don't understand what you mean by an improper synthesis tag - can you help me understand how to fix this? Thanks! Rjpg12 (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm looking back at the article by Sehlikoglu and Samie, and I think that the statement "Reporters also frequently alluded to exotic sexuality of Muslim female athletes, fetishizing both their covering and their bodies" is substantiated by the source. On page 374, they say "During the London 2012 Games, the veil and veiled Muslim women were frequently portrayed vis-a`-vis such Orientalist discourses of exoticism." and later "The result is a fragmented portrayal of al-Hamad’s veiled body which fetishes visible parts of her body and draws out her sex appeal: in this case her “dark eyes,”soft voice and petite body frame." Do you agree that this substantiates the statement in the Wikipedia article, or do I need to reword it? Thanks again! Rjpg12 (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them so quickly! I'm not sure what an "improper synthesis" tag is myself, but I see that you've added a citation in its place and its has thus been removed, so it shouldn't be a problem anymore. I've looked through the article again and have double checked the sources so everything seems to be in order. As a result, this article now meets the GA criteria. Well done! JAGUAR  22:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reviewing this article! I appreciate it! Rjpg12 (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.