Talk:Salman of Saudi Arabia/GA1

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

Reviewer: Yerevani Axjik (talk · contribs) 02:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Well-written: ❌


 * a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.


 * Explanation

The text jumps here and there. It says he was deputy governor of Riyadh in 1954, and just a sentence later the article is talking about the year 1964 and him being governor of the province. It doesn't say much about his governorship, even though he held the office for 48 years. His foreign visits are actually less important. The article should of have focus more on his internal politics, as he was a governor, not a king or a foreign minister. The whole section about his governorship needs to be seriously expanded in order for this article to get the GA status.

The section about his early life is far worse. The article says almost nothing about his youth.

The section about Salman's position as deputy crown prince is, as it seems, a speculation. The article doesn't say who speculates, so what we have there is just a gossip. And again, the prose is hard to follow, as text jumps from a year to a year, so it looks more like a chronology rather then a biographical article.

The section about Salman being a crown prince is decent, though much more can be written, especially about his philanthropic activity, for example in Bosnia and Herzegovina (in 1990s, way before he become a crown prince, which article doesn't mention at all).

The section about his kingship is ok. Though, templates for references (such as "cite news" or "cite web") should be used. The Early reforms subsections is missing a reference for the last claim.

In sections about his "views" and personal life, Wikileaks shouldn't be used as a reference. The rest seems to be ok.

2. Verifiable with no original research ❌


 * a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
 * b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
 * c. it contains no original research


 * Explanation

Sources such as Wikileaks aren't reliable. Also, the article was entirely writen based on news reports. Which would be ok, but much literature can be found that deals with Salman's biography. So better sources can be used.

3. Broad in its coverage: ❌


 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).


 * Explanation

The article failed to address the main aspects of Salman's biography. For example, nothing is mentioned about his controversial charity work in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1990s. Or, it doesn't really say much about important parts of his biography. For example, the article says: "He favored political and economic relationships with the West". The sentence doesn't really say much, like how did he favored political and economic relationship with the West, or where did these good relations with the west realised.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. ✅

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. ✅

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images ✅


 * a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Overall: ❌

--Yerevani Axjik (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)