Talk:2012 emo killings in Iraq/GA1

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

Nominator: OpalYosutebito (talk · contribs) 00:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jishara (talk · contribs) 21:37, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I'll be able to check in this weekend, since I'm going to be busy with a class. - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 00:17, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey @OpalYosutebito: did a check thru - comments are below. ping me when you get a chance to fix, i've provided 7 days as per norm. Most of the problems are in 2. Jishara (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I added an image and changed some of the sources :) - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 21:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the updates. A few remaining things - I still can't find a source in there for the Iraqis saying six deaths, and there is still a failed verifications tag at the end of the first, somewhat confusing sentence in Aftermath. As a side note, I don't see confirmation anywhere that the BBC interviewed 17 gay men and policemen (PS what exactly does that mean)?

Thanks for bearing with me, @OpalYosutebito:, and I look forward to getting this one approved. Jishara (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I will be sure to check back tomorrow. It's getting late in my area... - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 01:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Of course, no rush - i hope you have a great rest. just ping me whenever you get a chance. Jishara (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jishara I don't know how the sentence starting with As a result of the emo killings is not verified. Pages 19 and 20 of the PDF say In March 2012, IGLHRC learned of a new wave of "Emo" killing, which created fear and anxiety among LGBT community in Iraq. In response, IGLHRC joined Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International to condemn the violence, and to ask Iraqi authorities to investigate those murders and Affairs responded to IGLHRC's letter, indicating that based on the situation on the ground and our communications, "the Dutch asylum policy towards LGBT Iraqis has been expanded." - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 15:24, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@OpalYosutebito: This is a tiny bit nitpicky, but would you mind adding stated to the thing about asylum policy, cause it seems to just be the Dutch ministry saying it and not IGLHRC observing it? Once that's done and you remove the failed verif tag, only things will be the six deaths and the 17 interviewees. Jishara (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done; I'm going to take a break for a moment - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 15:49, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Great! Also, for clarity, that sentence doesn't mention what the groups joined to do. when you get a chance ofc, just ping me. no rush. Jishara (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 19:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

After a final double-check, this is Approved. Congrats, OpalYosutebito! Jishara (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

So there's nothing else I need to do? Thanks for your time! :D - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 23:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Follows the Manual of style in all relevant cases. Reasonably well-written - errors I spotted I also fixed, but please check back through to confirm no small errors (the type of things included are such as "affect" vs "effect", etc).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Firstly, there are two failed verification tags in the article, which of course block this from promotion. Secondly, a spotcheck turned up several sources that didn't say what they were cited for, for example - Cite 3 is used to say that gay men say the killings haven't abated but the source actually just says the killings are ongoing not accrediting that to anyone. 1 is used to cite a large block and is missing many of the details, for example the number 6. 5 doesn't discuss emo as being popular in other Arab nations. 9 never mentions the invasion. 2 doesn't mention the Human Rights Watch where it's used earloier on, and at a spot later where it's used it appears to be conflating two separate letters - one addressed to a bunch of gay men, and one addressed to emo youth listing that whole set of things listed there. Of course, this is not a comprehensive list of all the errors here - please check through it all to confirm. This is the biggest holdback.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers all the important aspects without straying.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Definitely neutral and manages to do it very well considering this disputed issue.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stability is met - there are some vandalizing in the history but all was pretty immediately fixed.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images present so currently no problems. Would recommend an image of emo fashion somewhere, as it would help to explain what's going on - tho not necessary.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: