Talk:Faeq al-Mir arrest controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFaeq al-Mir arrest controversy has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 15, 2009Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 12, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Syrian political activist Faeq al-Mir was arrested and potentially faced life in prison for a phone call?

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Faeq al-Mir arrest controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Consistency : Al Mir, al-Mir, Al-Mir. decide on one form and use it consistently.
 Done Now uses al-Mir consistently except when starting a sentence, which requires a capital "A".
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Ref #5 is not correctly attributed. It should be: Human Rights Watch, World Report 2008 - Syria, 31 January 2008, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47a87c15c.html. Notes #2 and #3 require some referencing.

1. I replaced the unchr link with a direct link to Human Rights Watch.
2. I have the references for both notes but don't know how to include them. Where do I place the citations? I tried placing one inside the note and received an error message.

  1. I think if you just place a conventional reference and include a quote, rather than using the notes.
I removed the notes. Mnation2 (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. OK, but the intorduction of ref #2 is not OK - You cannot cite other Wikipedia artciles. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Woops, I didn't mean to indicate that. Amnesty International calls the party unauthorized and pointing to the Wikipedia articles was meant to clarify what that means in context. I removed the reference to Wikipedia articles and added a "See also" section. Mnation2 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, all OK now. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    As of January 2008, Al-mir remains in prison but is expected to be released shortly. It is now November 2009 so this looks rather out of date.
I realize this, but there is literally no more information passed that point. Look at this google archive for the past year, for example: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&tbo=p&tbs=qdr:y&q=%22Faeq+al+Mir%22&start=0&sa=N
  1. Is the Faeq al-Mir mentioned at [1] and here [2] the same person? If so it would indicate that he is free.
Probably, but I don't know how to say that without constituting original research. (The sources say someone named Faeq al-Mir commented on Syrian/American politics in 2008. They never say this person was previously imprisoned for a phone call and then released.) Mnation2 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. OK, perhaps more information will turn up in due course. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The Human Rights Watch logo is not at all necessary. It does not add anything to the artcile.
 Done Removed
  1. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Just a few minor points above - on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for (finally) starting the review! Mnation2 (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes I am sorry about the delay but there are a lot of nominations and a relatively small body of reviewers. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. OK, all OK now. THanks for addressing my conceerns, I am happy to pass this as worthy of GA status. Jezhotwells (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Faeq al-Mir arrest controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Faeq_al-Mir_arrest_controversy&oldid=1201893869"