Talk:Timeline of the Egyptian revolution of 2011/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk · contribs) 04:39, 19 April 2012 (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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

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.

Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check the article and its edit history for the following basic problems which are sometimes found in GA nominations.

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Done
2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Done
3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}.) Done
4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. Done
5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. Done

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)		Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)		Pass
(c) (original research)		Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
Stable.	Pass

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

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content)		Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)		Pass

Result

Result

Notes

Pass

Discussion Without trying to be inflammatory, where does it say that links have to be accessible to US or UK readers? I understand the need for verifiability, but my understanding is that links are only encouraged, not necessary. I can't find anything that states links must be accessible in the US or UK, and to be honest such a requirement sounds a bit silly considering that there are more English speakers outside those two countries than in them, and most of those have at least nominal access to the internet. My understanding of WP:RGA is this: it only requires that the links accessible to the reviewer (not all links and sources) should support the article. Similarly, while English sources are preferable, they are not required by wikipedia. WP:NOENG clearly states that where an English source of comparable quality and relevance is available, it should be used. This puts the ball in the editor's court, not the reviewer's; the editor gets to decide whether there are elements in the non-English source that are not present in English ones. If you can't read the source, WP:NOENG requests that the editor do the reviewer the courtesy of translating relevant portions. Courtesy is the key word here. If the reviewer does not provide a translation in time, this is not a basis for failing the article. Basically, if the reviewer can't read the language in question, and can't find someone willing to read it for them, the reviewer is required to assume good faith on the part of the editor and treat is as an inaccessible resource similar to a non-digitized archival source or rare book (which again are not required to be in English). I welcome any comments or criticism of the above views. Verifiability is a tricky subject given the variety of media available to editors, and a subject that interests me deeply. I would be especially interested in amadscientist's opposing arguments, if any. --Rawlangs (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Additional Notes Reviewer notes before I begin This is an extensive article and seems well put together with a solid(edit) long list of references. It passes through quick decline criteria without question, but before i go further there are some problems that I need to address before I even start. First, the article has extensive images and are well suited in their sections in an encyclopedic manner. (Iwould have used less, but that's just me) There is a single image that will hold the article back from GA listing. File:'The March of Millions' - It's in our hands.png does not pass US freedom of panorama which does not allow the photography of 3 dimensional art, but does allow the use of images with buildings. The English Wikipedia must meet the US and UK copyright laws. Another major hold up is the "external links in the body of the article. Wikipedia states: Some external links are welcome (see What can normally be linked), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. --Amadscientist (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC) One of the main issues with this on this article is the lack of english in some instances spoken, some in text on video and mainly the non-English Youtube information makes it impossible to tell if this is an official Youtube site or a personal site, who they are etc, to varify the video's copyright.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Regarding File:'The March of Millions' - It's in our hands.png: The 3D object in question (Lion statue) falls under PD because it's over 100 years old as shown by this picture File:Ghezireh Bridge (1906) - TIMEA.jpg so I might be wrong, but I think it shouldnt be a problem. Please correct me if I am wrong. If the 3D work in the image is in the public domain I do not believe you have to do anything further. I will check, but I believe that is correct.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)  Done Regarding the youtube videos: All of them are from the original copy right holder account. Cptnono reviewed them awhile ago and he can noted that the ones in this article arent copy right violations. Also I only used videos from news agency (AP, reuters, alarabiya, aljazeera...etc) so I will be easy to check. If you have a problem with certain videos, please let know and we will work on the problem. Regarding the number of photos and video clips: Tell me which ones you think we should remove from the article and which ones should stay. The number of images will not hold the article back for GA in this instance. They are exceptionally well documented, used with context and in almost all cases have a free lisence. I just prefer a more conservative approach to image layout and that may comeback in the future should this article become nominated for Feature status. At this point That should really be changed to the external links issue as it's the external link boxes which I take issue with that are actually sandwhiching the text. I won't list to GA with the external link boxes in the article and at this point I get the feeling US browsers and Egyptian browsers are not seeing the same things but I will double check. I do not have time to go through every reference to see what shows as a dead link but again it was the first two out of three. External links: I am a bit confused because I am not sure if you mean external links or references so I am going to assume that you are talking about the references seeing how the article doesnt have any external links. I know I have used more than one source as reference to one info in the article; The reason I did that to avoid war editing and claim of POV because if different sources say the same thing, it's most likely true. I also tried avoiding using non-English sources as much as I can but some of the info are not available in English and hence I was forced to use non-English sources. As for the dead link issue: When I use wikipedia external links tool, it doesnt show me any dead links. :S I tried different computers and browsers with no luck. If there is another tool or away to view the dead links, please let me know and I will work on it ASAP. "404 Sorry, the page you requested was not found, click here to return to FRANCE24.COM" Is what comes up with reference 1- A, B and C. Similar with others. You may need to recruit an editor in the US or UK to go threw these.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC) The reference is fully available and archived on the waybackmachine. Perhaps link there? (http://web.archive.org/web/20110228075806/http://www.france24.com/en/20110125-egypt-braces-nationwide-protests) --Rawlangs (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC) LOL! Its really called "the wayback Machine". Lets, replace that link this with an "As archived here" sort of thing in notes attached . I think I fixed the dead link issues. Check it and let me know if there is any more problems. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC) The Youtube video boxes must not be included to be listed as GA. The serve no purpose and are not within MOS and guidelines for external links. No external links in the body of the article unless it serves a solid purpose. In this case it does not serve a purpose but to illustrate and is off Wikipedia. If videos used as refernces are not in english, this reviewer cannot verify them. Please consider this while I place the article on hold so that some conserns can be addressed.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Thanks again for reviewing the article. I know it's not easy seeing how big the article is. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Hold Notes The biggest problem facing the article for GA consideration is it's presentation to a US or UK reader. The only non-english sources and media that should be presented are those that have no main stream english equivalent. This seems doubtful with such huge coverage in the mainstream media. Videos from youtube should only be used as refernces if they are the source for copyright etc., however, again if you are using a non-english media report, there is likely to be an english equivalent. If you are using a video from Youtube as a primary source to illustrate an issue that is part of the reference that need not be English and any translation needed would be up to the reader but must have been directly mentioned in the reference. I bring this up for two reasons. First because this is the English Wikipedia there needs to be a consideration that the reader is only able to read or speak English. The article is articluated well, the refernces, may have some issues. Also, because it appears that browser differences may be incompatable from one country to the next, some references may need replacing for compatablity reasons as well. These are not issues that would get an article deleted or create a lot of stir. They are just issues that might not get you a GA listing. A very simple way to avoid having to replace most of the non english references is: "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy." (from Wikipedia WP:NOENG). The question arises in the fact that now a review is taking place and I cannot list as GA an article that I can't verify referneces for or doesn't attempt to find english equivalents/or attempt to use footnotes to the english written claims. For such a well known and notable topic (there is no doubt of this subjects great notablility) this wouldn't pass the GA criteria for verifiable. This may not be a huge problem here, I am just holding as the work might be achieved in reasonable time.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)