Talk:Habbush letter/GA1

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

Well Written: Pass Factually Accurate and Verifiable: Pass Broad in its Coverage: Pass Neutral: Pass Images: Pass Stable: Fail

FONT COLOR=DARKGREEN:Pass FONT COLOR=ORANGE:Needs Improvement but Passed nevertheless FONTCOLOR=RED:Failed

~Revised Good Article Review~ Happy Editing! (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Due to the request of a respected fellow wikipedian, Starczamora, I would like to extend my views to why I controversially failed Habbush letter which according to Starczamora under the influence bad faith. I would also like to use this opportunity to clean my name which has been left dirty by rash people who do not think before they act.

Reasons
I would like to explain in thorough detail to why the article did not passed to please Starczamora and to the people who are not contented with my review.

Reason One
The first time I took a quick glance on the said article, I thought it was worth the time to review it more thoroughly. However, the moment I scan on the history, it became apparent that it is a candidate of quick-fail. The dispute died on August 25,2008 due to the semi-protection that will end on September 9. The review was done on September 8,2008, one day short of the expiration date. Since the expiration date is just one day short of the review, it might have been justifiable to fail it due to the disputes that just died down because of the semi-protection.

Links Related To Reason One

 * 1) Quick  This is a guide on what are the first things to look on before an extensive review.
 * 2) Article History
 * 3) Protection Granted

Reason Two
There are a lot of unfinished business in the talk page. Most of them are according to reliability of sources and disruption.

Links Related To Reason Two

 * 1) Habbush letter Talk Page  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Habbush_letter

Reason Three
Although this has not been stated on the original review, at least two(13%) of it's sources is unreliable. Unless you consider this reliable, then only one reference is defunct.

Links Related to Reason Three

 * 1) Article References
 * 2) Blog Reference
 * 3) Defunct Reference

Sidenote
Starczamora apparently must have been angry at me for defending one article against deletion. In fact he might have deliberately typed the wrong link desperately hoping that nobody notice it. Well if he accuse me of bad faith, I have the right to be suspicious of that. Well accusing me of bad faith is bad enough and now saying I did nothing even if I did a little? Even though it's just 1/8 of a normal review, its still very different from doing nothing.