Talk:Abdel Halim Mohamed

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 23:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Checklist

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:

   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:

   Spotchecks revealed several instances where source-to-text integrity was a problem.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Spot-checks revealed several instances of close paraphrasing.

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:

   No stability issues.

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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Regretfully failing per comments below; verifiability and paraphrasing issues are substantial, and best handled at leisure outside the review process. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments

It's clear that a lot of hard work has gone into this, but this is still some distance from GA status: there are issues with language and sourcing that are apparent after a quick look, and I have yet to check on verifiability or copyright. I'm going to start with the sources, and once those issues have been addressed, move to a spotcheck and then to prose and organization. I may make copyedits as I go, but that's only for trivial fixes. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

• Facebook is almost never a reliable source; any post from there is an WP:SPS, and even if you could somehow show that the person making the source is an authority on the topic (this is difficult to do) there are usually better sources available. This is also the case with youtube, unless you're using a clip from the news media from a verified channel. I would say that all these sources, and the blogspot source, need to be replaced.

• I used Facebook for one person, Dr Muzammil Abu Al-Qasim, who is a Sudanese sport journalist. I used Facebook when I could not find his news article but now I found one but could not find the second except in Facebook. The two sources however corroborate the same information. And I did that whenever I used a source that is perceived as no reliable. I know there is a counter argument - brutally articulated by a fellow editor - that "more rubbish can mount to a skip, not a reliable source" which I used

• I would suggest doing without the second source, then. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Y

• I used youtube for an interview with Halim, in English, answering why CAF blocked Rhodesia

• No, that's still a bit of a problem; the issue isn't that Halim isn't reliable for his own words, it's that it's a youtube video uploaded by an unverified account, and we have no way to say it's authentic. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• The blogpost belongs to Professor Ahmed al-Safi who publish extensively about Sudanese doctors. He has a books about Ahmed Mohamed El Hassan which helped me write Ahmed Mohamed El Hassan, El Hadi Ahmed El Sheikh which helped me write El Hadi Ahmed El Sheikh, Mohamed Hamad Satti which helped me write Mohamed Hamad Satti, El-Tigani el-Mahi, and Mansour Ali Haseeb. Although he is a headache as a Wikipedia editor

Vanamonde93 hope this make sense FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm willing to accept the al-Safi source. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Can you please also explain how the following sources are reliable: yumpu.com, hashmab.net, sudaress.com, olympedia.org, p2k.unkris.ac.id, worldleaders.net, koraapedia.com, beinsports.com, elaph.com, sudan-press.net, the Human Kinetics book, the AuthorHouse book, and alnilin.com. Please understand I'm not saying they're all unreliable, but in general if a source is not a book by a reputable publisher, a scholarly article, or a piece from a reputable media outlet, we begin by assuming it's unreliable. As far as I'm aware, for instance, AuthorHouse is a self-publishing company, meaning that unless the author is an expert on this topic we shouldn't be using it as a source.

• first of all thanks for given me the chance to defend my work.
• yumpu.com is the website that host the PDF of the article that was published in Sudan Medical Journal in Aug 2009:45(2), I tried to find the original one put could not. Modified to reflect tha
• hashmab.net was used twice

• Ref 2 is written by Professor Fadwa Taha (luckily I wrote her WP), who is Sudanese historian and was the President of the University of Khartoum

• Okay, but who runs the website? Do we have any indication that it's not a complete fabrication? Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• ref 14 is written by Professor Hamd al-Neel, head of the Sudanese Doctors Syndicate in the UK and Ireland. His article and the Koora article, written by Journalist and play-writer Noman Hassan, both of them were used to verify one information that Abdel Halim was awarded the Order of the Two Niles which I can remove.

• Yes, if you can verify the award from elsewhere, that would be best. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• sudaress is not actually a source in itself, it a website that digitise Sudanese newpapers especially after the government crack down on free journalism. It is more of an online archive.Ref 10 is for an article that is published in "Last Moment" (Akhir lahza) which was constantly harassed by the General Intelligence Service (Sudan) before closing in 2020.

That's probably okay at the GA level, but you should a) make sure the citation information is for the news article you're actually interested in, and b) be sure that the news source itself is reliable. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Y

• Olympedia is a fairy reliable source, unless I am confused. According to Template:Olympedia it is used in 11,000 pages
• p2k.unkris.ac.id removed. Found better source.
• worldleaders.net removed and the sentence too.
• koraapedia.com and beinsports.com removed. They were redundant anyway
• Elaph is fairly reliable
• sudan-press.net is fairly reliable and dependent from the government
• Human Kinetics and removed as redundant, the page number is not also mentioned
• alnilin.com is good news source that I used occasionally especially when I am writing about Sudan. It also scan digitise Sudanese newspapers - similar to sudaress - along with their own columns.

@Vanamonde93 sorry give me a moment to re-instate your comments FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

The rest of this looks okay; please note replies above, but I'll get started on spot-checks in the meantime. I don't speak arabic, and google translate is pretty terrible at it, so I may ask for a few clarifications; there are so many arabic sources that I really should check a couple. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• FN1c; source makes no mention of the disease, why is this here?
• FN1d; source doesn't support "Like many at the time"
• FN1e/5c; neither source supports the date ranges in the text. Also, "as a house physician and then as a medical registrar" is the text in the source; the wording in the article is too close.
• FN1f/4b; neither source supports the date for Hammersmith; 4b doesn't mention Hammersmith at all, so not sure why it's there
• Based on the sentence I flagged above, I looked at Earwig's tool, and that result [1] is not good. Yes, some of it is common phraseology, and some of it is names, but there's a lot of phrases that are far too close.
  I'm sorry, but I think it's best if I fail this review now. I found verifiability issues with four of the first six citations, and I'm not even sure the last two are fine because there are multiple sources used that I haven't checked yet. And there's the close paraphrasing issue. It will make both our lives easier if you are able to work on this at your leisure, and if you renominate it, I will be happy to review this again. Wikipedia really struggles with articles outside the anglosphere, so I don't want to discourage you from working on this; it's an important topic. But this is a long way from GA status. I would suggest that you first eliminate the problematic sources from above; then, go to each footnote, open up the sources, and make sure the content in the article is only what's in those footnotes and no more. Once you're done, check through the most authoritative sources to ensure you haven't missed anything. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)