Talk:Abdul El-Sayed/GA1

GA review

see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   It's unfortunate that the separation of the two career sections breaks chronological order, however I think it's better than a single lengthy career section.

   This is fine.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Consider replacing U.S. with US everywhere, per MOS:US; this is recommended by the Manual of Style, but not required here given the declared use of American Engilish. Maybe

   The lead summarises his achievements well, but should mention his academic work, published articles and publications.  Done

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   A well referenced article, layout is satisfactory.

   B. 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):

   Citations are thorough and inline.

   Sources conform to WP:RSP and several spot checks support the text, passing.

   C. It contains no original research:

   I don't see any OR here.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Nothing significant in the Copyvios report. Matches are lengthy names of institutions, titles, or direct (cited) quotations.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Coverage is satisfactory, given WP:BLP.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Looks fine at first glance, but I would like to examine this with the 2B source check to come.

   passing this.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Seems fine to me.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   This seems to have settled down; given the upcoming Senate elections, this may attract some brigading and vandalism edits, but nothing that keeping it semi-protected and routine patrol couldn't fend off.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Images are appropriately licenced and tagged.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images are relevant and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Apologies for leaving this for a while. Unfortunately I am going to suggest a quick fail because of recent edit warring (QF reason #4) about El-Sayed's medical credentials. I will have to receive some oversight from an experienced reviewer before I close this, so apologies for the further wait on this review.

   @Framl: don't despair, it happens, and is beyond the nominator's or the reviewer's control. It's up to you as the reviewer, but you could perhaps 1. quick-fail it now, then maybe Edittttor (talk · contribs) can wait a couple of weeks and see if it dies down, and then renominate for GA, or 2. if you're not in a hurry, you could just sit tight for a few more days, and wait and see if the fly-by edits die down. (Update: that said, it looks like the nominator has been blocked) Looks to me like it was the work of one axe-grinding editor, that was eventually fended off by others exercising good WP:BLP policing. For what it's worth, from a brief look, the rest of the criteria look mostly okay - spelling, grammar, lead layout and BLP, good references, good coverage and focus, appropriate images with tags and captions. Feel free to sing out if you'd like to discuss further, here or on my talk page? — Jonathanischoice (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   Update: since the nominator has been blocked for a month, it may be prudent to go ahead and quick fail. — Jonathanischoice (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

   I'm back. And the edit warring seems to have subsided. Since the reviewer has disappeared, how do we go about getting a new reviewer to take it up? Edittttor (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

   I have done a first-pass review of the article, and apart from a couple of minor things, it's looking good for GA to me. I will go through the cited sources and check for WP:RS, and assess coverage of main points. Well done so far! — Jonathanischoice (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

   Excellent! Thank you. FYI I also added the suggestions @Framl made in regards to the pronunciation guide and additional authored book that they found. Will be happy to make the edits that you suggest as well. Edittttor (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

   I'm satisfied with the coverage, references, and sources check, so just a couple of things in the lead to cover his academic work, seems weird to mention his athletics career without it; see MOS:LEAD — Jonathanischoice (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Update:  Done, passing