Talk:Bahar Mustafa race row/GA1

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

Reviewer: Catrìona (talk · contribs) 16:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Please reply individually under each of my posts and mark with ✅,, , ❌, , or , followed by any comment you'd like to make. Catrìona (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Lede

 * although initially charging her, they soon dropped all charges recommend rewording to avoid the duplication of "charge"
 * I've changed this to "they initially charged her on two counts, but dropped proceedings after concluding that they were unlikely to secure a conviction". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * attracting media attention rephrase to avoid repeating this phrase
 * I've simply taken out the second "attracting media attention" as it was not needed at that juncture of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Since this is a biographical article, recommend using a free or fair use image of Mustafa
 * Ideally, we would have one, but I have been unable to locate a free image. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

General

 * I've done some copyediting to tighten the prose
 * According to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, there is no consensus that RT is reliable and it is recommended that it be avoided for "controversial topics". That said, I'm not sure that it's an issue in the way that it's used here.
 * Overall you've done a great job of keeping neutral on a hotbutton topic. From an initial read through of sources I think that you are reflecting mainstream coverage well.
 * Thank you for taking a look at the article; it is appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the sources, I am convinced that this is NPOV, but since I'm new to GA reviewing, I'm going to request a 2nd opinion on neutrality and the use of RT. Catrìona (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, Catrìona. I think RT should be fine for this, but a second opinion should not pose a problem. In my personal opinion, RT are no more or less reliable than most of the world's state press agencies; they all have their obvious biases and slants, but then again - doesn't all media? I suspect that a lot of the fears about RT's reliability as a source here at Wikipedia have their origins in the present wave of Russophobia making its way through the West. The only issue here is if the RT article is deemed to have produced "fake news", and I do not think that it has. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Second opinion I am personally against Russia Today, as they're a Russian propaganda organ. I suggest replacing it or stacking it with another, more reputable reference. – Vami _IV†  23:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But all press are propaganda organs of one form or another, whether that be for states or for private interest groups. To say that we cannot use RT because they are propaganda for the Russian state would put us in a very difficult position because we would then have to also avoid using the BBC because they are propaganda for the British state. The only reason RT would need to be removed here is if there is concern that the information contained within the article itself is inaccurate; I don't think that that is the case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, that's not the current consensus on Wikipedia. I have no opinion on the use of RT as a source in this instance, but I do think it's important to follow Wikipedia consensus for RS, and I'm not convinced that this usage is within consensus. Catrìona (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But is there an explicit consensus decision out there about this? If no such consensus decision has been reached, then it would be premature to start removing RT links. If there is such a consensus decision, then I will abide by it, but I'd like to see where that consensus was reached first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked the list and it appears that there is no consensus as to the reliability (or lack thereof) of RT at Wikipedia. So the question has to fall down to how RT is being used in this particular article. At present only one RT piece is being cited in this article, and it is being used four times. Of those, two repeat claims found in other reliable sources, and two of the claims are only cited to RT itself. Specifically, RT is the only source being used to support the statement that Mustafa was "A 28-year-old from northeast London", and that the "KillAllWhiteMen" hashtag "was described as racist." I'm pretty keen on keeping the statement regarding Mustafa's age and regional origin in the article as I think that they are important pieces of contextual information, but do you guys have concerns that this information might be factually incorrect? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems that there are other sources that provide the same information. This source gives her age and "northeast London", while this one describes the #killallwhitemen tweet as racist. Given that these sources are considered by the Wikipedia community to be more reliable than RT, it seems like it would be best practice to use them in addition to/instead of RT, as Vami suggested. Cheers, Catrìona (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent fine, User:Catrìona - I shall put those additional sources in immediately. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I gave two options. Replace or stack with a more reputable source. I recommend the latter if not the former. – Vami _IV†  19:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have now ensured that all four of the RT sources are stacked alongside another, less controversial press source. Many thanks for your suggestions and your time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)