Talk:Shadia Abu Ghazaleh/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 08:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Maddy from Celeste (talk · contribs) 22:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm excited for the chance to review this! I'll go to bed soon, so first comments coming tomorrow at earliest. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Prose quality is good (I fixed one slight grammatical error). Article is MoS-compliant; controversial labels (martyr, terrorist) are used with attribution.
Shortened footnote style is used consistently in the article. The article has dense inline citations to reliable sources. Most of the sources are scholarly publications. There is significant controversy on Wikipedia concerning the reliability of the Middle East Monitor, which is currently listed as "no consensus" at WP:RSP. As nothing indicates any controversy as to Shadia Abu Ghazaleh's biography, I don't see a reason to distrust them in this case.
The article is written neutrally. Viewpoints on the subject and her legacy are presented with due weight in accordance withe the sources
There are no pending disputes on the content of this article.
Spot checks and Earwig's detector revealed no copyright violations.
Considering the level of detail in the sources, the article is broad enough in its coverage. It does not go into unnecessary detail at any point.
Key example
editAbu Ghazaleh has frequently been cited as a key example of women's participation in armed struggle against the State of Israel
– Here you have a bunch of sources citing her as an example, but (unless it says so in one of those I can't access) I don't see direct support for her being a key example, which may fall foul of WP:WTW or WP:NOR. I'm all for describing her impact and legacy in the movement, but I feel there has to be a more verifiable way to put it.
- I've changed it to just say "example", which is more in line with the sources. Think "key example" might have been editorialising on my part. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Great! I'm going to insist on swapping out the Arab Humanities Journal as discussed below, but once that's done, I'm ready to pass this review. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Reliability
editThe article cites the Arab Humanities Journal, (al-Zaeem 2022) which I have some doubts about. Looking at the journal's website through Google Translate, the "International classification" section has a bunch of random logos like Academia.edu, ResearchGate, etc. The only journal indexer I can glean from these is "International Scientific Indexing", a Web of Science impersonator. The publisher's website also doesn't arouse much confidence. On the FAQ page, about half the questions are about all manner of fees they charge, and they have this strange English "about us" page. Do you have any information on the reliability of this journal?
- Honestly, I hadn't come across this journal until I started doing research for this article. Nothing stood out to me as unreliable, as al-Zaeem's article was verifiably well-cited throughout. The section on Abu Ghazaleh cites Wafa and openDemocracy; I also ended up citing the openDemocracy article, but not the article from Wafa, as I can't read Arabic. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Al-zaeem also has a PhD in Islamic civilization from the University of Malaya, so I didn't see any reason not to read their work as unreliable on first glance at it. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Right. Doctors still sometimes fall for predatory publishers. While I don't doubt that what is said there is true, I don't love the idea of citing a potentially dubious journal in a GA. I'll ask on WP:RSN, in case someone there knows more about Middle Eastern academia than I do. I think the safe bet here could be to find someone from Category:Translators ar-en to make sure the Wafa source verifies what we now cite to Al-Zaeem, and then cite Wafa instead. But let's see what RSN says. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- The response at RSN is quite unequivocal about this so far. What do you think of my above suggestion? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- If consensus aligns against citing the AHJ then aye, getting someone familiar with Arabic to check it against the Wafa article would probably be for the best. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Looking through the RSN now, I'm not so sure that citing Wafa would be a good alternative for this. Due to its nature as a state media company of the Palestinian National Authority, a few years ago, there was a lot of discussion about its reliability, although I'm not sure I can find a general consensus (opinions range from generally reliable to generally unreliable).
- Given that the only two pieces of info are cited solely to Al-zaeem (who himself cites Wafa), that being that she was in the Fedayeen and that the bomb was intended for use on a building in Tel Aviv, I'm wondering if maybe we should just cut this information out entirely and forego citing either AHJ or Wafa? --Grnrchst (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think that approach is fine too; it's not like some terribly important information is lost. I do think Wafa would be fine to cite here, there being no consensus on it being generally unreliable and, as with MEMO, I don't think biographical facts about Ghazaleh are disputed to the point where I would question Wafa's accuracy on that topic. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, it'll have to wait a bit for me to be able to access an archived version of the page Al-zaeem linked to. The link itself is dead and unfortunately some pricks did a DDOS attack against archive.org, so I can't use the wayback machine right now. Once it's up and running again I'll check the original source and see about inclusion. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- The Wayback Machine is up again now. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Maddy from Celeste: Thanks for informing me! I have now replaced the citations to the AHJ with ones to Wafa. Let me know if there's anything more I can do. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I spot-checked the information cited to it using a machine translation and it seems to check out, including the curcial footnote number 13, which only has this source supporting it. That'll make this review a pass. Congratulations! If the article has not appeared at the "Did you know?" section of the main page, you may nominate it now. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Maddy from Celeste: Thanks for informing me! I have now replaced the citations to the AHJ with ones to Wafa. Let me know if there's anything more I can do. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- The Wayback Machine is up again now. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, it'll have to wait a bit for me to be able to access an archived version of the page Al-zaeem linked to. The link itself is dead and unfortunately some pricks did a DDOS attack against archive.org, so I can't use the wayback machine right now. Once it's up and running again I'll check the original source and see about inclusion. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think that approach is fine too; it's not like some terribly important information is lost. I do think Wafa would be fine to cite here, there being no consensus on it being generally unreliable and, as with MEMO, I don't think biographical facts about Ghazaleh are disputed to the point where I would question Wafa's accuracy on that topic. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 13:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- The response at RSN is quite unequivocal about this so far. What do you think of my above suggestion? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Right. Doctors still sometimes fall for predatory publishers. While I don't doubt that what is said there is true, I don't love the idea of citing a potentially dubious journal in a GA. I'll ask on WP:RSN, in case someone there knows more about Middle Eastern academia than I do. I think the safe bet here could be to find someone from Category:Translators ar-en to make sure the Wafa source verifies what we now cite to Al-Zaeem, and then cite Wafa instead. But let's see what RSN says. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Al-zaeem also has a PhD in Islamic civilization from the University of Malaya, so I didn't see any reason not to read their work as unreliable on first glance at it. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Image
editThe photo is tagged with a Lebanese copyright tag, but there is no authorship information to show it was taken in Lebanon. Could the provenance of the photo be clarified?
- To respond on the photograph point: I have looked around everywhere I could for more information on the photograph, but haven't been able to find any information on authorship. I think you may have misread the PD tag, which is Jordanian, not Lebanese. The West Bank, which Abu Ghazaleh was based in from 1967 to 1968, during the entire period of her militant activity, was under Israeli occupation but de jure recognised as a territory of the Kingdom of Jordan. In Jordan, all photographs created before 1975 are in the public domain; and in Israel, photographs become public domain after 51 years of creation, which would mean it has been public domain since 2019. The only counterargument would be if Abu Ghazaleh was in a completely different country when this photograph was taken, which there is no evidence of. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yes, it was late and I got the countries mixed up. Anyway, this seems compelling so I'll check that off as ok. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)