Talk:Mouride/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 00:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Reads fine to this ESL.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
1) WP:LEAD requires that the intro provides a summary of the article and does not contain any new information. Current lead fails on both counts, as I see at least one (unreferenced) claim not covered in the aricle (The Mouride make up around 1/6 of the total population in Senegal), and the lead does not mention anything on major sections of the article (structure, beliefs). 2) Section headings need to be decapitalized (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters). 3) Improper bolding used at least once (Amadou Bamba), see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Boldface. 4) The article is reasonably blue and red linked *all leaders are likely notable and should be linked) till "Cultural Influence" section which needs wikification (WP:BTW). 5) Disambig tool detects two links that need to be disambiguated: [1]. 6) Elink tool detects three dead external links which need to be fixed or replaced: [2]. 7) Dahiras and Daaras sections are so tiny they should be at the very least merged together. 8) At least one sentence has improper subject ("we find") (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#First-person_pronouns). 8) Expansion tag is present. As I see no explanation on talk for it, it should be removed. 8) External links suggests spam - some lack formatting, others suggest peacock issues: "a rare book"... "a modest tribute".
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
1) Some references are missing an URL. 2) One reference is not formatted: www.worldtrek.org 3) O'Brien and Villalón book references need page ranges. 4) The article has a section on non-inline references (Sources). Non-inline references are not acceptable, the entries there should be moved to Further Reading and External Links section.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Major swathes of unreferenced text are a primary concern here. Not a single footnote in history section. Not a single footnote for leadership. Multiple sentences in latter sections are missing a reference.

C. No original research:
Red flag due to poor referencing.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Two issues need clarification: 1) List of leaders ends at 2010. Who is the current leader? 2) Sects sections suggest more than one exits, but only one (Baye Fall) is discussed.

B. Focused:
Seems on topic.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
No red flags.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No red flags.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
All seems fine.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
All seems fine, another image could be easily added near the end.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold awaiting responses. Please let me know if anything is not clear; please consider pinging me on my talk page to ensure I am notified ASAP. If something is addressed, please make a clear note of that both here and in the edit summary. If I am not notified of any changes on my talk page, I may not revisit this page before a week or so, when I will assess the progress made based on the comments here, and if no rationale have been presented for extra time, I'll pass or fail the article based on its state at that time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The week mark is close, and I am seeing no sign of life. This is disappointing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And failing due to no activity on the part of the editor(s) asking for the review. It's really not hard to check this page every few days and ask for extension if needed. Asking for a review and abandoning the page is not very respectful of the time volunteer editors put into providing feedback. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piortus, Thank you for all the feedback. My students are working on the article as part of the wiki campus project. They are due back to edit it tomorrow and will make what improvements they can. As our course was focused on politics, they are best equipped to address issues related to the sections near the end and will also edit the lead, as well as citations. It may still not meet good article status but should be improved. Prof M Johnson (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prof M. I will be happy to offer any further assistance, and I am glad to hear that here will be some further work on the improvements done. As a teacher myself I realize the constrains of educational setting, but please note that Good Article reviewers expect interaction with the editors involved in nomination on the scope of days, rather then weeks, and thus if editors (students) show no activity for extended periods of time, Good Article nominations are likely to be failed on the grounds of no activity. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]