Talk:Nizar Nayyouf

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.

---

GA Review

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

I am going to review this article for GA status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 21:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc Shearonink (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Wikilinking the term Secretary General implies a measure of power that Nayyouf's position did not have. Also, I am not certain that the Committee needs to be redlinked - is it notable enough to have a Wikipedia article written about it?

   Well-done, this article's subject could be thought of as controversial but tone is dispassionate

   Above issue is resolved. Shearonink (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   There are no images so that point is moot. But, seeing as how this living individual is a dissident in a country at war with itself, the images are not a pressing concern at this time. I do wonder, though, if there aren't *any* public domain photos of this man...

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   checking some more issues/concerns, but so far everything looks good

   • Did one last read-through, article sure looks good to me. Shearonink (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Per your query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria#Nizar Nayyouf, I'll respond to any issues raised here, though it seems like this article is good to go. Kudos to the nominator, @Intelligentsium:, and anyone else who worked on this for doing a great job. I've addressed your concerns about the prose. If there's anything else let me know. I'll keep an eye out for any public domain images, but wouldn't get my hopes up. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Thank you for fixing that Wikilink. I try to confine any edits during a GA to very minor ones and I was concerned that the S-G linkage might have been thought of as major. I did find a photo of Nizam Nayyouf on UNESCO's website, and even though UNESCO is a governmental institution am not certain of photos on its website regarding rights or copyright status: here. Nayyouf also has a profile photo on his Twitter page but I am sure that using it would be more problematic than the UNESCO one. Is there any kind of Fair use rationale for using a low-resolution photo to illustrate a WP:BLP? That UNESCO one isn't hi-res or anything... Shearonink (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I'm no good with Fair Use, having little to no experience using it, but I will check. Otherwise, it might be best to post a query at one of the community boards. The nominator really did a good job here, I hope he notices that the article passed. Regards, Al Ameer (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2017 (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.