Talk:Faten Hamama/GA1
GA Reassessment[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
At first glance this looked like an acceptable GA; it is well referenced and reasonably well written. After closer scrutiny though, it seems clear that it has some serious issues that have to be addressed before it can keep its status.
- The most serious issue, in my eyes, is with the "Accomplishments in Egyptian cinema" section. The first paragraph makes several strong assertions, but there are no references to back it up. This continues into the second paragraph as well. Without references this appears as WP:OR and potentially WP:POV, no matter how well researched it is.
- A couple of the assertions are repeated twice in the article; this goes for Omar Sharif and the kiss, as well as the Khul' story. In the latter case, a direct connection also needs to be made between the actress's role and the new legislation. If this connection can not be shown to have been made by some external, reliable source, then the assertion appears as novel synthesis.
- Awards and honors - this section should go, or be edited down, preferably to a prose section. Since the fork already exists, there is no need for this long list in the article.
- There is far too much peacock terms and flowery prose than what is acceptable in an encyclopaedic article. Examples are: "realized the young actress's talent", "was in search of her real identity", "their romantic relationship clearly evident on screen", "they fell in love", "Having learned from experience".
If anyone is interested in addressing these issues, please contact me, and I'll give a more thorough review. Lampman (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)