Talk:Corrective Move/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review

PASSED
Issues with prose, verifiability, broadness and neutrality have all been addressed, bringing the article up to GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Abo Yemen (talk · contribs) 06:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 14:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, I'm delighted to see you nominated an article for GA! I have some familiarity with South Yemeni history, but don't have much intimate knowledge, so I'm looking forward to reading more about this. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I placed the Biblio in alpha order. I noticed the one source with no author, and originally placed in in alpha according to the title, but then saw that it was being citeref-linked to al-Hamdani. Question: Should that go alpha according to A or H? Please advise and I'll be happy to re-place it. Thanks!  Spintendo  19:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I went ahead and placed it under H. Fascinating article by the way. :)  Spintendo  19:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Placing it under H would technically be correct since the "al-" prefix is meaningless. Thanks! 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Comments

  • Right now, the article appears to have no consistent English variant, alternating between American English spellings (i.e. "criticize") and British English spellings (i.e. "nationalisation"). Per the Manual of Style on national varieties of English, as South Yemen was a former British protectorate and as the British are mentioned throughout the article, British English spelling should probably be used.
 Done
  • I notice that in subsequent usages of names after their introduction, the article uses their first names instead of their surnames (i.e. referring to the president as "Qahtan" instead of "al-Shaabi"). Is there a reason for this? Per the Manual of Style on subsequent use of names, surnames should be generally be used in subsequent usages, except for specific culture-specific cases.

Background:  Done

  • "the National Liberation Front, which subsequently became known as the National Front" As we're only talking about Yemen's post-independence history, I think it would be safe to just call it "the National Front" from the off, just for simplicity's sake.
  •  Done
  • "on 30 November 1967," Is this referring to the date of independence or the date of the split? It's currently unclear just from the structure of the sentence.
  •  Done
  • "whose were adherents of Vladimir Lenin" -> "who were adherents of Vladimir Lenin"
  •  Done
  • "a revolution to dismantle the existing structures" -> "a revolution to dismantle existing structures"}
  •  Done
  • "whose were adherents of Vladimir Lenin and drew heavy inspiration from his book, The State and Revolution. The book emphasized the need for a revolution to dismantle the existing structures and establish popular state institutions." This could actually be condensed for concision. I'd suggest starting a new sentence here, so it reads something like: "The left-wing faction drew inspiration from Vladimir Lenin's book, The State and Revolution, which emphasized the need for a revolution to dismantle existing structures and establish popular state institutions".
  •  Done
  • Attempted spotchecks on [5] and [6], although the versions of these books that I have access to are older versions so the pagination appears to be different.
  • @Grnrchst: I've gone ahead and checked [6] and I'm sure that the page number is correct, as for [5], the page number was off by 190 pages 🙏. I've fixed it 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
  • "economic decline and chaos" "Chaos" is quite a vague and ambiguous term. If this is referring to political instability, then I'd suggest saying that instead.
  •  Done
  • "In addition to all that, [...]" This paragraph strikes me as rather tangential to the subject, seeing as none of these states or political organisations appear to have played a role in the Corrective Movement, and only the Yemen Arab Republic is mentioned later in the article. If it's not necessary to understand this in order to understand the Corrective Movement, then I'd suggest cutting this paragraph.
  •  Done
  • "Secretary-General of the NF" We haven't yet abbreviated the National Front, so it'd be worth putting NF in brackets next to its introduction.
  •  Done
  • "first 12-man cabinet" Is it necessary to mention the number of men that served on it?
  •  Done
Fourth General Congress of the National Front
  • "and called for incitement against them" This is a bit confusing, as incitement usually means to call for a crime of some sort; "call for incitement" doesn't make any sense. What was the article inciting/calling for exactly?
  •  Done
  • This first paragraph seems more relevant to the government formation than the Congress. It might be worth moving it into the previous subsection, which would then begin the section with focus on the factional dispute that prompted the congress in the first place.
  •  Done
  • "despite protests from the left-wing factions" Factions? Was there more than one left-wing faction?
  •  Done
  • "(the workers, poor peasants, and partisans)" Who were the partisans?
  •  Done - I've placed it in quotation marks
  • Spotcheck: [15] Verified in Halliday 2002.
  • Spotcheck: [18] Verified all but the last sentence in Halliday 2002; assuming last sentence is verified by Halliday 2013.
  • This is referring to the sentence Additionally, Ismail denounced the governments of Egypt, Algeria, Syria, and Iraq, accusing the bourgeoisie in these countries of masking its dictatorship as "socialism" and arguing that this leadership was more harmful to national revolutions than open counter-revolutionary forces. right? If so, Halliday 2013 says Abdul Fatah [...] then criticized the governments of Egypt, Algeria, Syria and Iraq. "The compromising petty-bourgeois leadership in the epoch of imperialism is even more dangerous for the national popular democratic revolution than the explicit counter-revolutionary policies of the semi-feudal, semi-bourgeois alliance." In Arab countries like Egypt the petty bourgeoisie had masked its dictatorship as ' socialism'. The general critique of the petty-bourgeois leadership clearly applies to all four countries; the specific point about masking dictatorship as "socialism" is explicitly mentioned only in relation to Egypt. I will update the text accordingly. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • All the stuff about Ismail's programme should be in one paragraph, as it's all thematically linked, while the stuff introducing the congress could be appended to the previous paragraph.
  •  Done
  • "He pointed to historical failures, like the revolutions of 1848," Why? What was he pointing to them for?
  •  Done
  • "criticized the overthrown regimes of Kwame Nkrumah and Sukarno" What did he criticise them for?
  •  Done
  • "accusing the bourgeoisie of masking its dictatorship as "socialism"" I'm assuming this is referring to the bourgeoisie in the aforementioned countries?
  •  Done
  • "arguing that their leadership was more harmful" The leadership of the bourgeoisie or the leadership of the aforementioned countries?
  •  Done
  • "To defend the gains of the revolution," This is the first time an ongoing revolution is being brought up. Is this referring to the 14 October Revolution? If so, this should be more explicit.
  •  Done
  • "it called for nationalisation" It being Ismail's programme? Before this, we were referring to what Ismail himself was saying, so the "it" pronoun isn't entirely clear.
  •  Done
  • "foreign banks' trade" What does this mean? How can the trade of foreign banks be nationalised?
    • Checked source, which says "nationalisation of foreign banks and foreign trade".
  •  Done
  •  Done
  • "The left made the proposals of [...]" Suggest: "The left proposed [...]".
  •  Done
  • Spotcheck: [20] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: First sentence verified in pages 21 and 22 of Halliday 2002, not just 22. Verified thing about left-wingers having the majority on the council in page 14 of al-Hamdani 1987 (most of the cited page range does not verify any of this). Assuming the rest is in Halliday 2013 and Muhammad 2020. As this is a long paragraph with a lot of information in it, I'd strongly recommend un-bundling these citations and moving them in line with the specific information they're verifying, in order to help ease verification.
  •  Done
  • "After the congress," After the congress? Not at the congress? Did they only obtain majority support afterwards?
  •  Done
  • "After the congress, the leftist faction [...]" This sentence is uncomfortably closely paraphrased from the source. Slight trims for concision would go a long way to rectifying this.
  •  Done
  •  Done
  • ""doubtful hireling counter-revolutionary elements"" I'd recommend condensing this to just "counter-revolutionary elements".
  •  Done
  •  Done
  • "the rapid formation of local popular councils culminating in a Supreme People's Council" How did the formation of local popular councils "culminate" in a Supreme People's Council? This part of the sentence is unclear.
  •  Done
  • "Popular Guard" What was the Popular Guard? It's not mentioned before in the article, nor does an article about it exist to link to.
  • @Grnrchst: I'm assuming that you want me to add a link here (red link since we haven't created any article about anything related to PDRY military yet), which I've  Done. The Popular Guard was only mainly mentioned during the congress 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
@Abo Yemen: I think it could still do with some in-text clarification as to what it was. Even with the red link, it's unclear what the Popular Guard was. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
To be fair, Lackner also doesn't explain what the Popular Guard is; the book contains only a single mention: "the defence of the revolution against its internal and external enemies was to be ensured by ‘the strengthening of the Popular Guard’." Paprikaiser (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
@Paprikaiser I think I've read somewhere that it is one of the armed wings of the nf. Ill have to search for where i read that tho 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
I'll check my books. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
@Grnrchst I've changed the wording to "the National Front's Popular Guards". I think that this says enough and assuming that the average reader has critical reading skills, they'd know what that is from the context of the sentence. Marking this as  Done 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Aye I think this is enough to clarify what they are. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Spotcheck: Verified most in Stookey 1982, pp. 64 & 66, although I can't find anything about the proposed militia's trade unionist composition in this source.
  • Lackner 1985 says Distrust of the British-created national army continued on the left, and the defence of the revolution against its internal and external enemies was to be ensured by ‘the strengthening of the Popular Guard . . . [and] the creation of a popular militia composed of trade unionists, peasant unions, student unions, and the generalisation organs in Yemen through dialogue with the revolutionary forces in North Yemen.’ Paprikaiser (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  •  Done
  • Citations should usually be provided at the end of sentences that contain direct quotes, even if it results in repeating citations.
  •  Done
  • After reading all this, I'm left wondering if it could be trimmed down a bit, as there's a couple cases where the text repeats itself.
Conflict in the National Front
  • As per previous comment, citations should be provided immediately after direct quotes.
 Done
  • As we're quoting quite liberally from Muhammad 2020, it'd be worth giving the Manual of Style on non-English quotations a read just to ensure we're making clear that these are translated quotes.
  • "a series of demonstrations broke out in Aden, Ja'ar, Yafa, and Hadhramaut against the insurgents" -> "a series of demonstrations against the coup broke out in Aden, Ja'ar, Yafa, and Hadhramaut".
 Done
 Done
  • Spotcheck: [32] al-Hamdani 1987, p. 14 seems to be referring to the 20 March coup attempt, not a purge on 30 March.
  • Spotcheck: [33] Again, the source seems to be referring to temporary right-wing dominance after the coup.
  • Link to counter-coup.
 Done
  • Spotcheck: [33] Verified counter-coup, but can't find anything about the Madinat Asha'ab uprising.
 Done Added a reference. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Spotcheck: [32] Verified failure of the left-wing counter-coup on page 14, but couldn't find anything about the General Committee's demands.
  • I am also unable to verify both the General Committee's demands and the Madinat Asha'ab uprising. @Algirr: you added that content back in May. Could the source have been misplaced? Do you remember where it came from? If not, I think it's best to remove it. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
@Paprikaiser As far as I remember, most of the information that is outside the section on reforms was transferred by me from the article on Qahtan al-Shaabi and the Russian Wikipedia Algirr (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I was able to find a source for Madinat Asha'ab. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  • "the left's rebellion ultimately failed" Why?
 Done Expanded the sentence based on the source. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  • "following Ismail's return from Moscow" When did he go to Moscow? This isn't mentioned before.
 Done I removed the mention of him returning from Moscow, since the sources only note in passing that he had been there before, which doesn't seem relevant to include. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
  • "the two leaders" The two leaders of what? Who were they?
 Done - changed it to "the two factions"
 Done

Political shift

  • "president and prime minister Qahtan al-Shaabi"; "National Front (NF)" We already know about the president and national front, so I'm not sure we need to reintroduce them and link to them again. Unless the expectation is that readers would skip over the background section?
  • "successfully attempted to undermine" These two words work against each other. If the attempt was successful, then we can just say they undermined him.
  •  Done
  • "According to Fred Halliday, the dismissal happened on 16 June 1969." If the sources disagree on the exact date, why are we giving one in the text and relegating the other to an explanatory footnote? Is there a reason to believe one over the other?
  •  Done
  • "Qahtan and Faisal al-Shaabi had offered to resign" -> "Qahtan and Faisal al-Shaabi offered to resign"
  •  Done
  • "dispatched a few soldiers" A few?
  •  Done
  • Spotcheck: [44] Partially verified in Brehony 2017, p. 444.
  • "Crater and May 1968 uprisings against Qahtan" What does "Crater" mean here? Was it another uprising? When/where did it happen?
  •  Done, it refers to the city of Crater (Aden). The word "Uprisings", which is in use already, suggests that it is one . Both happened during the
  • It stands out to me that this section, which is what the article is ostensibly about, is very short compared to the background and aftermath sections. Is there any more detail we can provide about the events of the Corrective Move itself?
  •  Done

Aftermath and reforms

  • When was this given the name of the "Corrective Move"? Who gave it this name and what were the reasons?
  • I actually tried looking for the reasons for this naming, but found nothing in both Arabic and English reliable sources. It's most likely that Abdul Fattah Ismail gave it the name since he was the "Minister of Culture and National Guidance", but again, this is just my OR 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Although I think all of this is important to cover, as it's showing the consequences of the Corrective Move and what these people did with their power, I do wonder if this section is overly long and detailed. I'd recommend trimming things back a bit to give a broader overview, and moving parts that are less relevant to the Corrective Move to the main article on South Yemen. This is all really interesting, I'm just concerned about the relevance of some of it to the subject.
  • @Grnrchst: IMO, the events and reforms that happened after the political shift are as relevant as the shift is, since it wouldn't be a "Corrective Move" without the "corrections" that took place 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
State and government:  Done
  • "PDRY embassy" We've not yet referred to South Yemen by the state's full official name, so using the abbreviation before introducing it is confusing.
  •  Done
  • Spotcheck: [33] Verified.
  • "The state came under the rule of a 5-member Presidential Council. [...]" It seems as though we're repeating information from the previous section.
  •  Done
  • "Muhammad Ali Haitham was forced to resign and leave the country" Why did this happen? This seems important to explain, seeing as he was kind of the trigger for this turn of events.
  •  Done
  • "good education, women's rights, and low corruption" According to whom? These metrics are rather subjective and need qualification.
  • Spotcheck: [55] Verified.
Social structure
  • "In 1974, the 1974 Family Law was adopted." Mentioning 1974 twice in the same sentence is a bit funny; like, of course a 1974 law was adopted in 1974. Recommend changing to say "In 1974, a new family law was adopted" or something similar.
  •  Done
  • We use sfnm formatting throughout the article, so why are we using two individual Sfn citations next to each other here?
  •  Done
  • When was slavery abolished and Sharia law replaced?
  • I have removed that sentence because both slavery and Sharia law were abolished in South Yemen before 1970. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  • "By 1985, the government had made significant strides in improving the educational level of the population." This strikes me as a bit editorialised and approaching puffery. I think we can allow the rest of the paragraph to speak for itself here.
  •  Done
  • Spotcheck: [63] Verified.
Infrastructure
Agrarian and economic reforms:  Done
  • "The Marxist government soon organized several peasant uprisings" Wait, the government organised uprisings? Against itself?
  • ""solving the agricultural question in the interest of the farmers and poor peasants through the peasant uprisings and the march on the road of establishing and forming the public cooperative sector"" This is a very long quote that says very little. Can we summarise?
  •  Done
  • Spotcheck: [65] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [66] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [67] Verified.
Housing
  • Spotcheck: [71] Verified.
  • Checked against WP:JACOBIN; as Lackner has expertise on the subject, I think citing this article is fine.
  • "in the reports to the so-called "Unification Congress"" What was this Unification Congress, and why are we introducing it as "so-called" (implying a lack of legitimacy)?
 Done
  • Spotcheck: [73] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [71] Verified.
  • "were of a higher quality compared to many other nations at the time" What other nations (i.e. other nations in the region or globally)? According to whom?
The source simply says Medication and services were free, and of higher quality than in many other countries. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
@Grnrchst any comments on this or should I mark this as done? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@Abo Yemen: If the source doesn't specify, then I think this could probably be trimmed. Vaguely gesturing at "other nations" just raises more questions then answers. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
@Grnrchst  Done 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Electrification:  Done
  • "Since Britain did not attempt to electrify areas outside Aden, after their (and their specialists') flight in 1967, the entire country, with the exception of Aden, was left in complete darkness." This could really be trimmed down to something like "Britain did not attempt to electrify areas outside of Aden, leaving most of the country in darkness after they left the country".
  •  Done
  • Spotcheck: [76] Verified.

Lead and infobox:  Done

  • If there were no casualties, then I'm not sure it's necessary to include that field of the infobox.
  •  Done

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The prose is often unclear and in many cases could do with greater concision; there are also a few grammatical errors here and there.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    A few cases in which the article strays from the manual of style.
  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:
    All references are properly presented.
    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):
    All sources are reliable, but there's one cases in which they could be cited more inline with specific information (rather than bundled at the end of a paragraph).
    C. It contains no original research:
    A couple cases where spotchecks failed verification.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    It sometimes approaches quite close paraphrasing; greater concision could help with this.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Everything I would expect to be covered is.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    I think the focus given to the background and the aftermath outweighs the actual subject of the article itself; these sections could be trimmed down a bit and the section about the political shift could be expanded (if possible).
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    A couple cases where it approaches non-neutrality, particularly in the aftermath section.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Most recent edit war was brief, minor and happened some months ago (and appears to no longer be active).
  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:
    All images have relevant and valid PD-Yemen rationales.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    All images are relevant to what is being discussed.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This was a fantastic read and a very deep, informative article. It has issues, particularly with clarity, concision and focus, that are holding it back from meeting the GA criteria, but I think it could get there with a bit of work. Feel free to ping me once these comments have been addressed and/or if you have any questions. Excellent work on this so far! --Grnrchst (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
@Grnrchst Thanks for taking the review! I'm a bit busy with college these days but Ill try my best to fix all the issues raised here. I'll hopefully be free on thrusday and Friday and will try to deal with everything I can. I'd also appreciate the help of the other editors who worked with me on this article (@Paprikaiser and @TheUzbek) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
I will help! :) TheUzbek (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the review, Grnrchst. I've implemented some of the recommendations and adjusted parts of the Background section as well as the Fourth General Congress of the National Front. I'll continue with the rest tomorrow! Paprikaiser (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
@Grnrchst: we're done with most of the issues brought up and all that's left is the stuff that needs reading the sources again, which I would've done if I had more time on me today :( 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for seeing to all this, it's coming along well! --Grnrchst (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
@Abo Yemen, Paprikaiser, and TheUzbek: Hello all! Thanks for all the work you've been doing on this article so far, it's coming along great. It seems the only comments that have not yet been addressed are the spotchecks that failed verification and the issue of whether the Background and Aftermath sections could be trimmed and/or the Political shift section expanded. I think Abo Yemen has made some good points about retaining much of the aftermath section (though I still wonder if it could be trimmed down a little for the sake of concision) and would like to hear your thoughts about the rest of it. Thanks again. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we need to trim the Background or Aftermath sections. Background is already pretty compact, and Aftermath is broken into subsections that make it easy to follow. I wouldn't mind expanding the Political shift section though. The article currently sits at around 4,200 words, which is well within a reasonable prose size. I'm also working on some of the failed verifications now. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Ok, I'm happy to drop the issue of the background and aftermaths sections if there's consensus against further trimming. I look forward to seeing further expansions to the Political shift section and the rectification of the failed verifications. Thanks! --Grnrchst (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
@Grnrchst I am against the trimming of those sections since the events preceding the move were really important to knowing why this happened. The thing too is that as far as what I could find about the details of the events, this article has the most detailed description of the events anywhere so far, tho It'd be cool if Paprikaiser finds something to expand the article with (tho, again, I dont know how).
I see that Paprikaiser had dealt with all the failed verification stuff so 2C should be marked as passed. It would be really useful to point out to some more specific examples for 1B since you haven't mentioned what MOS the article is sometimes straying away from. I'm sorry for this inactivity but college, and some other personal issues, are making it hard for me to be on Wikipedia as much as I was for the past year 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
@Abo Yemen: If there's no extra information, then I'll be happy to pass this, I just wanted to make doubly sure we're being as broad as possible. That this article is already the most detailed description of these events is fantastic and exactly the kind of thing we should be aiming for on Wikipedia. I actually did point out the Manual of Style problems in the comments, the part I'm not sure has been addressed was the Manual of Style on non-English quotations. Best of luck with college by the way! --Grnrchst (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Ah, the quotation stuff. Ill get right to fixing it. Sorry for forgetting about it, and thank you! 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
@Grnrchst Done, hopefully correctly 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:10, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
@Abo Yemen: This looks good, but there's a few more quotes from Muhammad 2020 that this needs to be applied to. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
I think the sections Fourth General Congress of the National Front, Political shift, Aftermath and reforms, Social structure, and Housing are complete. What remains is updating the Muhammad 2020 quotes (which I can't handle myself since I am still learning my ABCs in Arabic) and finding a source for the General Committee's demands in Conflict in the National Front. I've been searching, but if I don't find anything by tomorrow I'll remove it. We could also look into expanding the Political shift section. I'll have more time to properly look into that tomorrow or over the weekend. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
@Paprikaiser: Great to hear! Feel free to ping me once you've had a look at the sources on these. Once these final issues have been addressed, I'll be more than happy to pass this. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
@Grnrchst I've added the missing source and expanded the Political shift section, though I'm sure there's still room for further development. Abo seems quite busy at the moment, so I'm not certain he'll be able to provide the needed Arabic translations. If not, I can ask around in other projects to see if someone else can help. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Ok! I've given the article another check, and I'm now confident that it meets all the GA criteria. I'm more than happy to pass this now and would even go as far to say that it may be ready for FAC with a bit more work. Excellent work from everyone involved, this has been a wonderful process to be part of and I have learnt so much from it. This has made me want to learn even more about South Yemeni history, so the article has done its job! --Grnrchst (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI