Talk:Malala Yousafzai/GA4

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 22:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I did some minor copyedits; I hope you don't mind. Here are the initial comments:

1. Well-written

A. Prose: the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

• The article is well-written, though a significant amount of the sentences begin with a date and it's a bit repetitive.

Okay, most sentences that start with a date have now been restructured. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

• Minor issue with WP:words to watch - "some political parties, right-wing groups and other individuals have aired conspiracy theories..." Can you specify which political parties/groups/individuals?

• I can't, unfortunately. The source states only "some fringe Pakistani political parties and extremist outfits are working actively to spin the attack on Malala as the work of the CIA". It also links to a Tribune columnist stating "It would be hard to imagine how a counter narrative could be built around the gunning down of a child, but there it was, coming from our politically charged youth, our parties, our ultra-nationalists and religio-political parties, our extremist/banned organisations and yes, our relatives, peers and friends." I'm up for rewording this per any suggestions you might have; this is text I inherited in rewriting the article, so I'm not especially attached to it (though some mention of the conspiracy theories needs to be included). -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Quotations would help eliminate the WP:WTW issue: Although the attack was roundly condemned in Pakistan, "some fringe Pakistani political parties and extremist outfits" and other individuals have aired conspiracy theories, such as the shooting being staged by the American Central Intelligence Agency in order to provide an excuse for continuing drone attacks. --1ST7 (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Rewritten per your suggestion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Verifiable with no original research:

• Everything appears to be well-referenced.

1. Broad in its coverage:

• Article is focused and covers all of the main aspects of the topic.

1. Neutral:
2. Stable:

• No edit wars, etc.

1. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

• There are currently no images in the article. They are not necessary for the article to be passed, but is it possible to add a picture of Yousafzai?

Aside from these issues, the article looks ready for promotion. I'll place it on hold for a week. Thanks for your work on this one! --1ST7 (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review! I'm very happy to see you pass from quality GA-writing to reviewing so quickly. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks! --1ST7 (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional note: I saw this report online a few minutes ago. Please update the "Awards and honors" section. --1ST7 (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Updated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to check in--anything left to do on this one? Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in. 1A still needs to be addressed - the dating is bit repetitive. Can you reword a few of the phrases to make it flow better?

Ex. "In February 2009, girls' schools were still closed. In solidarity, private schools for boys had decided not to open until 9 February, and notices appeared saying so. On 7 February, Yousafzai and a brother returned to their hometown of Mingora, where the streets were deserted, and there was an 'eerie silence'" to "In February 2009, girls' schools were still closed, and private schools for boys announced that they would delay opening for one week in solidarity. On 7 February, Yousafzai and a brother returned to their hometown of Mingora, where the streets were deserted, and there was an 'eerie silence'." --1ST7 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to vary the structure more, but I'm surprised you consider a clarity issue to the degree that this doesn't meet GA requirements. Will get to it tomorrow if not tonight. Thanks again for the suggestions, -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, so I'm passing the article. Congratulations, and thanks for your work on it. --1ST7 (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate your taking the time. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)