Talk:Mohamed Hamad Satti/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 05:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm unfortunately inclined to quickfail this article, per WP:GAFAIL #1 (It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria) and arguably #3 (It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid). The article has significant tone and prose concerns, with markedly subjective descriptions (He was known for being an entertaining educator) and many grammatical errors (e.g. Satti Honorary Doctor of Science in 1980 from the University of Khartoum, he received the Shousha Prize from the World Health Organization in 1985,[18][4] and was awarded the Order of the Two Niles in 1989.[10] In 2011, a foundation, Dr Satti Foundation, for medical research was created in his honour). The article is also quite short for such a biography, which implies there may be breadth of coverage issues. I'm strongly inclined to suggest the article be copyedited (I'm placing a copyedit tag on it, which means it'll hopefully get someone looking at it in the next GOCE drive). The article cites what look to be some quite in-depth works on its subject, which raises the question of why it's so short, and it may be worth reviewing the sources to see if any relevant information has been left out; having said that, some of the sources seem of concern, such as Blogspot and a possibly self-published book. This quickfail is not an indictment of your work on the article -- this is an important addition to the encylopedia -- but it's not yet something that could pass GAN. Vaticidalprophet 05:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Vaticidalprophet “ He was known for being an entertaining educator” is paraphrased from the source at the end of the sentence, i.e., Ref 2 and 1. It can be written as “according to ..” but I don’t think that is needed given the no one is contesting that and the reliability of the source
 * The bit you outlined as a grammatical mistake is on the last section and for the 1st sentence which is missing the word received. Now amended
 * I read the book that you think it may have more information and I think I included most of what is relevant, since the book is written by a historian doctor who focuses on the significance of the medical input which is very technical. I’m happy to summarise each chapter in that book and post here for your to confirm
 * I wonder if we can still work on this article and give time to address your concern including even expanding the article. we don’t have many good articles from these regions, although that is not a justification to accept garbage, I think myself and Wikipedia can benefit from your guidance through this process. FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)