Talk:Ahed Tamimi/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 22:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this one on, though I see that the nominator has been indefinitely banned, so, if there are any substantial issues, then I suppose it will have to fail? We'll see where we are after I make a first review. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

 I read in the previous review that you were open to taking the nominator's place here. Thanks for stepping up!
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * I've copyedited the prose up to a good standard, and the article satisfies the relevant section of MoS now that I've trimmed a few "words to watch" and a bit of editorializing. More changes are needed to reach neutrality, as noted below.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * The claim that she "belongs to a second generation of Palestinian children who have grown up under conditions of occupation" is not supported by the given citation ("Ahed Tamimi: Defiant symbol of Palestine"), which says nothing about generations (though it does assert that she has grown up under conditions of occupation); the next citation ("Sherwood") does support that assertion and should probably be used for both sentences (I don't see that the "Defiant symbol" source adds anything).
 * The assertion that "the Israeli military was sharply criticized by the international community, and rallies in support of Tamimi occurred in major cities throughout North America and Europe" is followed by two citations, but neither says anything about "sharp" criticism of the Israeli military or about rallies at all, let alone "throughout" North American and Europe. Either a real source needs to be added, or that sentence needs to go.
 * Other issues are noted under NPOV below.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * There's a lot of excessive detail in the article at present. The assertion that her ancestors have lived in Nabi Salih for centuries is irrelevant (she's not accused of being an unauthorized immigrant), as is the assertion in "Early life" that Tamimi "aspired to be a lawyer as a young girl." The assertion that "Commentators have been polarised in their assessment of her" seems out of place in "Activism" and should be moved to "Analysis" or removed.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I've already cut some basic weasel words, and I gather that Israel agrees that the Palestinian territories are "occupied," but one big neutrality breach remains. There's already a lengthy argument on the talk page about this, but the sources cited don't support the statement that her story has "highlighted Israel's mistreatment of Palestinian minors," and that assertion cannot be made in wikivoice; at a minimum it needs to be attributed to some source (e.g. "Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have criticized Israel's imprisonment and military trials of Palestinian minors...").
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * It needs some substantial cleanup, but the meat of a Good Article is there. Looking forward to hearing from the volunteer pinch-nominator! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * It needs some substantial cleanup, but the meat of a Good Article is there. Looking forward to hearing from the volunteer pinch-nominator! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll wrastle wrastle wrastle this review. 💵Money💵emoji💵 💸 14:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've addressed comments in points 2b "citations to reliable sources"; 3b "focused"; 4 "neutral point of view policy": diff. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That was some very responsive editing, thank you! My concerns have now been addressed, and the article is promoted. Good work, everyone! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)