Talk:Saqib Ali

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleSaqib Ali was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 22, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
September 2, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Argument for notability[edit]

While the article is a complete mess the Washington Post is portraying his and Keith Ellison's victories as signs of Muslim Americans growing engagement in the political process and see his election as a historic marker. Therefore the article should be cleaned up instead of deleted.Wowaconia 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up, wiki-fied, and expanded the article. It should be acceptable now.Wowaconia 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive job expanding and adding references to the article Subwayguy 20:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail: Diez2 16:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

obviously an inside job[edit]

this needs to be something other than an autobiography. WillC 01:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of this page you'll see that I was one of the main contributors and I became intrested in him when he was mentioned on CNN alongside Keith Ellison (politician) whose election was in my district. As this article was scant and un-wiki when I looked into it I worked to bring it up to wiki-standards. I live in Minnesota not Maryland and while I am not a Muslim I think its intresting to see how Muslim-Americans and non-Muslim Americans are getting along in the post 9/11 world.--Wowaconia 02:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA/R[edit]

I must agree with User:WillC, and list this article up for a Good Article review. The introduction appears to give a purely positive outlook on this person and various politically signfigant things, things like "won the right" and excessive use of victory are the first sign there's a problem here. Of course, other people may not see it that way, so i've filed a WP:GA/R on this article, and also because it was not properly listed on the main GA page, and I figured I might as well go and handle the articles which showed up on a list of improperly passed articles anyway. Homestarmy 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the phrasing but it seems arbitrary to take exception with the word "victory" being used to describe winning an election.

--Wowaconia 22:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit, my standards often are arbitrary when it comes to how dramatic certain word choices sound, but that's part of why I put the article up for review instead of just saying that i'll delist it tommorow or something. I probably would of filed the review anyway, i've been dealing with articles that haven't been listed as GA's properly all today anyway, and i've listed several others that seemed somewhat controversial as well, the way I see it, it doesn't hurt to make the status of these articles relatively certain. Homestarmy 22:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Trespass notification.jpg[edit]

Image:Trespass notification.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA Review[edit]

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

The article is good overal, except for a few minor problems, which have been stated below. However, if the problems are not fixed within one week, I will have to fail the nomination. Warrior4321 23:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After more througly seeing the article, it seems there are too many problems, and must unfortunately fail. Once these issues are adressed, feel free to nominate it again at WP:GAN. Warrior4321 05:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


In depth review[edit]

Lead[edit]

  • A lead of this article size would require one to two paragraphs. Perhaps adding another paragraph is needed, as there is more information about South Asians and politics than there is about himself.
  • The lead talks more about South Asians and politics (as mentioned in previous comment), than it talks about himself. The lead should be more about Saqib Ali : his life, his family etc.

MOS[edit]

  • There a few one/two sentence sections
  • There are too many quoations. Every section has atleast a quoation. Too many quoations are not needed ; it makes the article look lazy.
  • The quoations are not attributed to the person who said them in the article itself.
  • The career section is empty.  Done
  • The legislative notes sub-section should be in paragraph form, not list form.

References[edit]

  • The 2006 election campaign section does not have a citation. Please add one.
  • The information in the infobox template on the right is a quick summary of the information in the article. However, the infobox presents new unsourced information.
  • Some inline citations are placed like external links.
  • Several links are dead. See here for the dead links.
  • There a few {{citation needed}} templates.

Images[edit]

  • The image placed in this article has a very high chance that it was not taken by that user. The user has had many copyright problems with other images. The image placed in this article has a very high chance that it was not taken by that user. The user has had many copyright problems with other images.

Content of the lead paragraph[edit]

Based on the title and most of the article, this page is about Ali. The lead paragraph contains far more, however, about a rise of South Asian political influence in the U.S. Most of the information on political clout should be moved elsewhere, with the lead rewritten to introduce the whole rest of the page. —ADavidB 01:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is noted in the GA Review. Thanks. Warrior4321 07:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Saqib Ali. 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) 01:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saqib_Ali&oldid=1205173892"