Talk:Bahrain/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Futuretrillionaire (talk · contribs) 00:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Give me a day or two to read it carefully. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First things[edit]

Okay, this is what I’ll do. Due to my busy schedule, I will review in detail a few sections a day until I finish. I will post these reviews here daily.

Hello! I'll be the person who edits the article as fits. Take your time, there is no need to rush.--Droodkin (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I’ll discuss the article overall qualities, organization, infobox, and lede.

Overall, the article looks well written, but could use some minor organizational adjustments. For someone who knows nothing about Bahrain, geography might be one of the first sections to look at. I’d recommend moving that section right after etymology. Also, governorates should be moved before politics.

Y I've looked at other GA country articles (Scotland and Croatia included) and they usually place geography after the history section. Seems like a fair compromise.--Droodkin (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox looks fine.

The first paragraph of the lede looks good. The second one about history doesn’t have any refs, but I assume that there plenty in the history section below. The third and fourth ones are okay, but I’ll like to see a sentence or two added about the country’s current culture and language, and maybe along with challenges the country is facing.

The second paragraph is roughly a summarized version, all the citations are in the history section (I figured it would've made the lead a bit too cloggy with a citation after every line).--Droodkin (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the lede is not unnecessary. It’s slanting towards current events. Plus, there’s already a section discussing the uprising under the history section.

Summary of needed improvements:

reorganize the sections as stated above Y
~~add a sentence or two in the lede about the country’s current culture~~ Fair enough
remove the paragraph about the ongoing uprising Y

Tomorrow I’ll review the etymology and history sections. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganized it, I don't think there can be a statement on the country's culture. It is cosmopolitan but it's constitution declares that it is an Arab state. I think it would be better to leave it neutral (plus, a culture section already exists).--Droodkin (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology and history[edit]

Nice job making those changes. It looks like I got some extra time today, so here I go:

Etymology

Who is “al-Ahsa”, from the third paragraph? This needs to be made clear.

Al Ahsa is another name for Al Hasa, which was already mentioned in the section.--Droodkin (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Islamic period

Any writing about history should be written in chronological order. I’m having problems with this sentence: “It has been ruled by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and then Arabs, under whom the island became first Christian and then Islamic.” First, it does not indicate which eras or years it is describing. Second, it interrupts the chronological order by introducing Persians and Arabs, when the next paragraph is about the Persians. I recommend that the Persians and Arabs be removed from the sentence and indicate which years/eras the Assyrians and Babylonians ruled the island.

“During the classical era, the island was known as Tylos in Europe.” Shouldn’t this sentence be in the etymology section? How is this important to the island’s history? Also, why is “Tylos” boldfaced in the second paragraph?

“AD” should be added to “In the 3rd century [here], Ardashir I…” for clarification.

The wikilink to “Sassanid dynasty” should take the reader to the “Sassanid Empire” article, not a family tree.

Is this sentence necessary? “The Sassanid Empire divided their southern province into the three districts of Haggar (now al-Hafuf province in Saudi Arabia), Batan Ardashir (now al-Qatif province in Saudi Arabia) and Mishmahig (which in Middle-Persian/Pahlavi means "ewe-fish").” I don’t see how it’s important. Also, which one of these is Bahrain?

This subsection should mention the role of Arabs in the island’s history.

Islam, Persian and Portuguese control

I think these sentences are more appropriate if they are moved to the etymology section. “Until the late Middle Ages, "Bahrain" referred to the larger historical region of Bahrain that included Al-Ahsa, Al-Qatif (both now within the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia) and the Awal Islands (now the Bahrain Islands). The region stretched from Basra in Iraq to the Strait of Hormuz in Oman. This was Iqlīm al-Bahrayn's "Bahrayn Province". The exact date at which the term "Bahrain" began to refer solely to the Awal archipelago is unknown.”

I’m surprised that this section doesn’t contain information about medieval Arab trade.

The header of this section say “Persian”. The word “Iran” was not commonly used until 1935. The words “Iranian” in this section should be changed to “Persian”. [1]

Rise of the Bani Utbah

Things look fine here. However, I'll a little disappointed that the only images I've seen so far are maps of Bahrain. Are there no historical paintings, artwork, or maybe photographs of historical landmarks?

Summary of issues (This will be used as a check-list)

Who is al-Ahsa? Y
Sentence interrupting chronological order, needs year/era Y
Tylos, ~~move to etymology~~ Y (good enough)
AD Y
Wikilink to Sassanid Empire (minor issue)
Possibly unnecessary sentence about 3 districts Y
Role of pre-Islamic Arabs? (preferred but minor issue)
Info about how word Bahrain is used historically should be moved to etymology Y
Medieval Arab trade? (preferred but minor issue)
Persian > Iranian Y
No images except maps? Y

The etymology and history section could clearly use some clean-up. However, the sections are very well-cited. I'll review the rest of the history section tomorrow. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, edited.--Droodkin (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you made a lot of improvements, however there are still somethings left. According to the etymology article, "etymology is the study of the history of words, their origins, and how their form and meaning have changed over time." I really think the sentences in the history section describing the historical use of the word Bahrain should be moved to the etymology section. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hope you like the photos! :) --Droodkin (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Side note - It looks like Mohamed CJ added this to the history paragraph in the lede. "Starting from February 2011, the country has experienced major sustained protests and near-nonstop unrest inspired by the regional Arab Spring." This seems a little wp:undue. According to the manual of style, [2] "In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject". I'd recommend shortening this sentence, perhaps like this: Since early 2011, the country has experienced sustained protests and unrest inspired by the regional Arab Spring. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done It is a shame that I don't have enough time to help with fixing other problems. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More history[edit]

Nice job making those improvements! This is not a short article and might take a few more days for me to finish reviewing.

Al Khalifa ascendancy to Bahrain and their treaties with the British

Second and fourth paragraphs: “Iranian” should be changed to “Persian”.

Early 20th Century reforms

This should be added for clarification: “In 1927, Rezā Shāh [, the Shah of Iran,]demanded…”

Discovery of petroleum and WWII

This should be removed because it was already discussed in the previous subsection: “culminating with the appointment of Charles Belgrave as advisor. He went on to establish a modern education system in Bahrain.”

Drop of Iranian claim

There appears to be a verification request for this sentence: “The policy of "deiranisation" consisted of importing a large number of different Arabs and others from British colonies as labourers”. I have found to web source to verify that. [3] However, the sentence looks like close paraphrasing of the material in the web source I provided, thus violating copyrights. Dr. Mojtahedzadeh looks reliable, so the sentence can stay in the article, but it must be rewritten.

I checked the third paragraph, which also cites Dr. Mojtahedzadeh, and it doesn’t seem be close paraphrasing.

Independence

Everything looks good here.

Bahraini uprising

I don’t really see how this uprising is more significant than the 1990s uprising, and has to be written in more detail. It’s seems like wp:undue weight. This stuff should really only be written in one paragraph. The tone also seems to be in favor of the protestors. It needs to be wp:npov.

Here’s what I recommend: “Inspired by the regional Arab Spring, large protests demanding political reform started in Bahrain in early 2011. The government responded by conducting thousands of arrests, requesting security assistance from the GCC, and declaring a state of emergency that lasted for three months. Clashes between protesters and security forces lead to dozens of deaths. Protests, sometimes staged by opposition parties, are ongoing.

I’m not even sure if we should keep the subsection “Bahraini uprising” heading. I’ll let you decide on that.

1990s uprising was way smaller than this one, no foreign intervention, no international media attention, no huge protests etc. I even dare to say that the media attention received by the uprising is the biggest in the history of Bahrain. Nevertheless, the summary looks good, but it's inaccurate. For instance, 1) demands aren't just political reforms, as parts of the opposition called for fall of regime, so it's better to avoid pointing to that and 2) state of emergency lasted for two months and a half (declared as three months, but ended before). I'll hopefully work on this tomorrow. As a side note, this section was already trimmed last July. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check it out now. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of issues (this is used as a check-list)

“Persian” > “Iran” in 2 places Y
Rezā Shāh , the Shah of Iran clarification (minor issue) Y
Redundant info about Charles Belgrave Y
Copyright violation (Dr. Mojtahedzadeh) Y
Bahraini uprising subsection: undue weight and strong bias Y

I hope you can fix these problems. I will return soon reviewing the geography and politics sections. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. --Droodkin (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History sources[edit]

I'm concerned with the quality of sources used in many parts of the history section. Sources like these [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] are at best borderline as reliable sources. Other footnotes appear to go straight to primary sources, such as [11]. Is it possible to source more of this section to scholarly works or fact-checked media? I've also added a citation needed tag for the statement "The event resulted in approximately forty deaths and ended after Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa became the Emir of Bahrain in 1999", which does not seem to appear in the given source. Khazar2 (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and politics[edit]

The Bahraini uprising section still needs to be fixed. Meanwhile I shall move on.

Geography

These two sentences contain the exact same info: “The agricultural and domestic sectors' over-utilization of the Dammam Aquifer, the principal aquifer in Bahrain, has led to its salinisation by adjacent brackish and saline water bodies. Over-abstraction of the Dammam aquifer, the principal aquifer in Bahrain, by the agricultural and domestic sectors, has led to its salinization by adjacent brackish and saline water bodies.” Remove one of them.

Done. --Droodkin (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

Citation needed: “The Zagros Mountains across the Persian Gulf in Iraq cause low level winds to be directed toward Bahrain. Dust storms from Iraq and Saudi Arabia transported by northwesterly winds cause reduced visibility in the months of June and July.” ^{[citation needed]}

Added a wikilink to the NW wind (Shamal as well as a citation. --Droodkin (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiversity

The bullets following this are not necessary: “Bahrain has five designated protected areas, four of which are marine environments. They are: …”

I believe it would be better to list them rather than to clog it all in a paragraph since it is straight to the point. --Droodkin (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

Shouldn’t the “a” in “al” be capitalized (Shaikh Khalīfa bin Salman [Al] Khalifa)?

This might need to be added per the NYT source: “making him the world's longest serving [unelected] prime minister.”

“an extremely important role” sounds un-encyclopedic. Perhaps change “extremely important” to “vital”.

Done. "al" is not always capitalized, but in Al Khlifa (sometimes Al-Khalifa) it is the most common way of writing it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights

Looks good.

:) Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women’s rights

This section sounds a little biased and can be organized better. It lists a lot great accomplishments done by Bahraini women, giving the impression that women have it good in Bahrain. I recommend having the first paragraph be about improvements in women’s rights and their accomplishments. However, a second paragraph containing criticism of the women’s rights situation is probably needed, to make this section more neutral. The sentence about Ghada Jamsheer should definitely be included in the second paragraph. Try to find some more women’s rights issues that Bahrain is facing.

Compared to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain might be a heaven for women, but there's the usual males get higher salaries and better job opportunities. I'll try to find some and add them. Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can make it anymore, too busy :( Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military and foreign relations

Looks good.

Summary of issues (this is used as a check-list)

redundant info about aquifers Y
Citation needed for in the Climate section Y
~~Bullets not necessary in Biodiversity section~~ Fair enough
Capitalizing “al” (minor issue) Y
add “unelected” (minor issue) Y
change “extremely important” to “vital” (minor issue) Y
Make the women’s rights section more neutral by having two paragraphs, one describing improvements, the other describing ongoing issues and criticism.

I hope you can fix these things. I’ll be back tomorrow to review the governorates and economy sections. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verification in military section[edit]

Hopefully these are points that can be quickly corrected, but a few points in the military section failed verification.

The sentence "The supreme commander of the Bahraini military is King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa and the deputy supreme commander is the Crown Prince, Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa" couldn't be exactly verified by the given source, which described the Crown Prince as "Appointed Bahrain Defense Force Commander-in-Chief" and did not mention the king.
In the sentence "The BDF is primarily equipped with United States equipment, such as the F16 Fighting Falcon, F5 Freedom Fighter, UH60 Blackhawk, M60A3 tanks, and the ex-USS Jack Williams, an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate renamed the RBNS Sabha", the given source only supports the statement about the RBNS Sabha, not the more general statement "primarily equipped with United States equipment" or the other types of planes and tanks.
In the sentence that ends "about 1500 United States and coalition military personnel", where does this figure come from? The site currently mentions "6,093 military personnel and DOD Civilian employees", so perhaps the figure is just out of date? (Perhaps an "As of" would be helpful here.) It would also be worth clarifying who the "coalition" is in this case if that phrasing is kept.

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Governorates and economy[edit]

A sentence about current women’s rights issues still needs to be added the women’s rights section. I will continue with the review:

Governorates

Looks good.

Economy

“Persian Gulf crisis of 1990–91” should be changed to Gulf War or Persian Gulf War, due to common name. (minor issue)

Wikified a link to it. --Droodkin (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the economy section looks really good. However, I’m disappointed that the section doesn't discuss Bahrain’s major imports. It briefly discusses imported crude oil, but is that it? I’d expect an arid and populous country like Bahrain to import food at least.

Added two citations as well as more about the country's agriculture industry. Should be enough.--Droodkin (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, these two sections are really well-written. I shall review the demographics and culture sections tomorrow. After that, I shall make my final assessment.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics, culture and citations[edit]

Demographics

Looks fine.

Culture

This section should at least briefly mention how people dress in Bahrian.

The source from ayearofreadingtheworld.com in the Literature section (the part with the self-published source template) has questionable reliability. The author worked for the Guardian, but her blog is not entirely convincing. I’d recommend to just remove the sentence using that ref. It’s not really that important.

Grammar: “Ali Bahar was one of the most famous singer[s] in Bahrain”

Some of the holidays in the holidays chart don’t have descriptions, which should be added. Also, is this chart complete? What does “non-regular” in this sentence mean? “Other non-regular holidays are listed below:” The chart appears to include common holidays such as New Years and Labor Day.

Citations

The sources here seemed to be cited properly, no bare URLs. However, Khazar2 brought up some important points (see the History sources section above) regarding the reliability of certain sources in the history section. There are a lot of easily accessible reliable sources that can be used for the history section, such as these: [12], [13], [14], [15]. I’m sure there’s more. See if you guys can replace the questionable sources with reliable sources. I’ll look at the sources of this article more in depth tomorrow. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations should be good now, I weeded out the self-published ones and added new ones.--Droodkin (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final assessment[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is not beautifully written, but it's pretty good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Don't see any big problems here.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The sources are properly cited.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There does appear to be a few sources whose reliability is questionable. However, the statements that cite these sources are not statements that are likely to be challenged.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yup.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pretty much all the topics I can think of are included in this article. There are only a few minor issues, such as the article's lack of inclusion of how people dress in Bahrain. But then again, there are plenty of photos of people.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The parts that I thought contained undue weight have been fixed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No big problem here. The women's rights section could use a sentence describing current women's rights issues. However, I've checked several featured articles on countries, and none of them had women's rights sections. I'm not sure if a women's rights section is necessary for this article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	All the edits I've seen so far have been constructive and cooperative.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images don't seem to violate copyrights.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good choice of images.
	7. Overall assessment.	Thank you guys for taking your time improving this article. There are still some more things that can be done, especially regarding reliable sources. Congratulations, I believe this article meets the criteria for a good article.