Talk:Kayla Mueller/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 23:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Currently second on my "to review" list, after "Mr. Monk Gets a New Shrink". BenLinus1214^talk 23:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC) @Shhhhwwww!!: Comments

I'm sorry, but I believe that there is a good amount of work to be done before this article can be listed. You don't seem to have contributed much or at all to the article and are not very experienced at GAN--I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the good article criteria if you have not already. I would prefer that you respond here, but if after seven days (or fewer if I see that you are editing and not responding to the review) the comments are not required, then the article will have to fail. Anyways, let's get into this:

Lead

• This lead is much too short and not comprehensive. Particularly, her humanitarian work prior to capture and reactions to her death should be expanded.
• It seems bizarre to just have the "Media had long reported" sentence without other crucial details being included in the lead.

Activism and humanitarian aid

• Most of the paragraph of this section (up to the footnote) is unsourced—her education is not included in the source, as well as many of the listed types of humanitarian work.
• Put a subscription parameter for ref 2.
• I dislike that you've primarily sourced this section with what appears to be either her official website or a website designed to promote and support her and her causes. If this is the latter, why is it a reliable source? The material in this part, especially the bullet points, reads like a résumé.
• Most of this material is irrelevant and much too detailed as well.

Capture and death

• What makes "The Gateway Pundit" reliable? It just looks like this random guy's political blog.
• I'm a bit troubled by the Shoebat source. While it looks like a news site, if you dig deeper, it's primarily done by these two relatives who are very biased against Islam in general. Because it is a news-driven piece used to state facts, I think I can accept it, but what is your rationale for using it compared to other news sources that could provide the same information? :) (BTW, I'm okay with you using Fox News--it's a mainstream news source).
• Could you be more specific than "militants abducted her"?
• The chronological order part of this is a bit all over the place--you talk about the rescue mission, then skip ahead a few months, then go back to the rescue mission.
• "The Pentagon agreed…with the family's consent." The "not in citation given" tag is well-placed here, making most of this paragraph unsourced.

Reactions

• There's a lot more in the "family" subsection that can be done, and I've seen more pieces of information in the sources you already have.
• The first part of the "government" subsection isn't a reaction to her death, per se. So it should be in the previous section. Also, the Obama part should be in the reactions section.
• "After many Western news outlets…" What news outlets? What did they say? This whole topic must be expanded. This seems to be a big part of the reactions to her announced death and it's given very little time.
• I don't think you need the hashtags and caps locks in the tweets.
• I'm sure there are other examples of Jordanian officials reacting to the tragedy, no?
• The source about the Pentagon declining to investigate appears to be relatively long--could you include more on their rationale behind not investigating?
• The whole Time part is quite non-neutral--you can't use phrases like "her selfless desire to end suffering", "her desire not to be seen, but to genuinely help people", or "possession of Millennials' positive good [this is redundant] qualities…" in the encyclopedia's voice. Using short quotes and phrases like "what they saw as blank" would be a lot better.

External links

• This is a funny collection of external links. Why were these chosen?

@Shhhhwwww!!: If you would like to start/keep working on this article, I recommend that you take these comments to heart and possibly get a copyedit or peer review before renominating. On hold for seven days, until you respond and tell me that you would like me to fail for now and renominate in the future, or until I see that you have contributed to other articles without responding here. Thank you!

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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.:

   none recently

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):

   no images in the article currently--could use some in the form of photos of Catherine Herridge or Aafia Siddiqui in the capture and death section and one of Obama or Nasser Judeh in the reactions section.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Fail it for now. I am too busy at the moment to work on this. Maybe someone else could work on this but I am sure it won't E me. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Fail as the article currently does not meet criteria 1b, 2b, 3a, 3b, and 6, and 4 is questionably met. BenLinus1214^talk 14:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)