Talk:Bahrain health worker trials/GA1
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Suri 100 (talk · contribs) 07:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I was initially tempted to pass the article. I am putting this article on hold for one minor reason:-
In several sections, the Baharin commission of Inquiry is referred, such as 'government appointed commission'. The findings of Commission of Inquiry as mentioned in several statements should be mentioned in a seperate section which can include the section of torture of health workers.
Conclusion: 
. I am putting this article on hold. Suri 100 (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for reviewing! My concern about creating an independent section for the BICI is that we don't have separate subsections for other sources, like the Amnesty International report or Doctors Without Borders, and I'm worried that it might raise POV issues to have the BICI stand in a section alone. It also seems to me more helpful to include the BICI information in each relevant part of the article (arrests, torture, reactions). So for now, what I've done is to avoid the repetition by more clearly identifying the BICI when it's first introduced, thereafter using an acronym. Does this seem like an okay fix to you?
- Let me know your thoughts, and again, thanks for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I am really satisfied with your response. But there is a new prob, the ref no 25 and 35 is a dead link. I have one suggestion(not mandatory), you can add more photos to this article. Suri 100 (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've replaced ref 25 and added the print page url for ref 35. Ref 35 was working fine for me, but when I tried to archive it, it didn't work so I figured I must be viewing a cached copy on my pc? Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for beating me to that, MCJ. As for photos, if I come across any more in the future, I'll definitely add them. Thanks again for the look and suggestions, and just let me know if you see any other issues. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- The dead link note shouldnt be there!.In some reviews, this is enough for rejection of GA!. I think you must remove that reference or substitute it and i know you can very well do it. Suri 100 (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you understood me. The original url (of ref 35) was replaced with another from the same website. Some websites take down articles but keep the "print page" or the "mobile page" available, perhaps because their size is much smaller. The same info of the original page is available in the print page. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, Suri, I have to point out that dead links are not a GA criterion. You can see this at the criteria page, which specify that dead links are only an issue if it's also a bare url with no other information; at GA reassessment, which states "Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with 90% of the Manual of Style pages, are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for de-listing."; or at WP:GACN, which lists "Demanding the removal of dead links, in direct violation of WP:Linkrot and WP:DEADREF" as an error in reviews. I think what MCJ has proposed is a good middle ground if it's okay with you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I can even e-mail a copy of the original article, since it's saved in my cache. Khazar, can you try to open the link [1]? Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that opened fine for me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Then it must have been tagged in mistake? I'm reverting my change in the article. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, that opened fine for me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I can even e-mail a copy of the original article, since it's saved in my cache. Khazar, can you try to open the link [1]? Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, Suri, I have to point out that dead links are not a GA criterion. You can see this at the criteria page, which specify that dead links are only an issue if it's also a bare url with no other information; at GA reassessment, which states "Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with 90% of the Manual of Style pages, are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for de-listing."; or at WP:GACN, which lists "Demanding the removal of dead links, in direct violation of WP:Linkrot and WP:DEADREF" as an error in reviews. I think what MCJ has proposed is a good middle ground if it's okay with you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you understood me. The original url (of ref 35) was replaced with another from the same website. Some websites take down articles but keep the "print page" or the "mobile page" available, perhaps because their size is much smaller. The same info of the original page is available in the print page. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Review edit
Now after the concerns have been met:-
1.Lead Section
2. Well-written:
3. Verifiable with no original research:
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without 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 images:
Comment:- More images
7.References
Overall: Passed GA status. Suri 100 (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)