Talk:Linda Sarsour/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 02:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Will be reviewing this over the next 24 hours. Initial thought: the References section needs some clean-up... access dates, link the first instance of a work title (example: references 2 and 3 don't link to Haaretz or The Washington Post). I'll use the bot to add archive URL's to every reference once that's done, and will then start on prose/source check after that. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I fixed the issues with references 2 and 3.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Don't forget the access dates. And, unfortunately, there are still references 3–72 to format (ref's 2 and 3 were just examples). Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: All sources in the article now have access dates.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

• Review

3 points:

• Text supported by reference 9 (Democratic Socialists of America) has a {{Better source|date=January 2019}} tag. Can you find one? Closest I found was this, which, although a popular website, doesn't especially scream WP:RS to me. Another potential source is this, which again is of questionable quality, IMO. More reliable sources - [1] and [2] - don't specifically refer to her as a member of that organisation, just that the DSA is "closely associated" with the Women's March, while name-checking Sarsour as an organiser of the march. If you don't like any of the first two sources and can't find a better better quality references, then the text about her being a member of DSA should be removed.
• Remove red links for Jews for Racial and Economic Justice and MPower Change from the article.
• The second paragraph of Linda_Sarsour#Fundraising_efforts seems disjointed to me. "Sarsour's request for donations to Hurricane Harvey relief efforts was criticized by conservative opponents, "evidence of [Sarsour's] growing status as a favorite target of the right", according to Newsweek." The quote could be better incorporated to original statement.

After spending several hours reading the article and the majority of the references, I'd be happy promoting the article to GA once these are resolved. I have to admit, as I went through the listed sources and a bunch of other (most non-RS) sources I'd come across on Google, I was especially worried about this article violating GAC#4. There's so much vitriol about Sarsour from both far-left and (especially) far-right sources that I was worried that, somewhere along the way, the article would veer off too far into one of those directions and eventually end up including content which violated neutrality. But you did a damn fine job avoiding that. The article dryly incorporates all the aspects of Sarsour's public perception, without giving much providence to one particular viewpoint. Kudos on that.

Copyvio tool indicated no likely violations, and all the images are from Wikipedia commons, although I question the necessity of using the image in 'Religious views' (of her wearing a red hijab, since the main infobox image is already of her wearing a hijab). Also, I think the first paragraph in 'Religious views' can be expanded. This CNN interview (already used on the article elsewhere) has a nice quote explaining in more detail her choice in wearing the hijab: "For me, hijab is only a form of oppression when a government forces it on people...". These are minor quibbles, and won't effect promotion.

Well done, @MagicatthemovieS: I'd be happy promoting this once the 3 points above are resolved. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I addressed your concerns; should the article mention that Sarsour has favorably spoken about Sharia law, while opining that it shouldn't oppose on non-Muslims?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Thanks @MagicatthemovieS: but I don't really understand your latter point. The article does include text claiming she was subject to "false reports" about her advocating "imposing sharia in the United States". Is there more to this story that I missed in my review? Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Sarsour doesn't want to impose sharia on anyone, but we should probably mention that she defends it, per [3] MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

@MagicatthemovieS: Add it if you want, but I'd also ask that you add context for the claim, because it could easily be misleading: i.e., the source says that Sarsour "regularly defends Shariah on social media, arguing that it doesn't impose on nonadherents and that Muslims must follow the laws of the land wherever they live." The source also goes on to explain what Sharia actually is. This might be a slippery slope, though, because adding one thing might mean you'd need to add more things which don't necessarily relate to Sarsour in the first place (does this article really need a detailed description of Sharia law?) Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: I do think that this info should be included; why don't you add the Sarsour Sharia stuff to the article and word it the way you think is appropriate?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

If you want to include this, it'd be better if you add it, @MagicatthemovieS: Something in 'Religious views' along the lines of: "In response to numerous American states passing legislation which would block the introduction of any "foreign law", legislation which often focuses primarily on Sharia law, Sarsour has regularly defended the practice on social media. She has clarified that people of other religious denominations would not required to adhere to Sharia, and that it would not take precedence over existing civil laws." What I've written here is quite truncated and doesn't explain very much. I really don't believe this is necessary. But it can all be referenced to the NBC source you've linked to above. Other sources explaining in detail what she has specifically said about Sharia might be required to add proper context. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Thanks so much for your help! Is the article pass-able now?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

I like AlsoWukai's intermittent re-write of what we were discussing above, so I'm happy to pass this now. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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.:

   This is the criteria that troubled me most in promoting. The article has been the subject of protracted and aggressive edit wars in the past, but is currently stable due to extended page protection and discretionary sanctions (i.e., all articles relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict are subject to these sanctions). Should these protections be removed in future, however...

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: