Wikipedia:Peer review/Abdul El-Sayed/archive1

Comments from Noleander

• @Edittttor: I'd be interested in doing a peer review on this. Normally for an FA nomination, the primary author of the article does the nomination. Secondary editors can nominate for FA, but they must first notify the major contributors before nominating. From WP:FAC: "[FA] Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. "

The authorship tool (at https://xtools.wmcloud.org/authorship/en.wikipedia.org/%20Abdul%20El-Sayed/ ) shows that user:Jonathanischoice and user:Blackstardust16 and a few others made more contributions than Edittttor. It would help me (and maybe other peer reviewers) to know exactly which editors are planning on nominating it for FA. More than one editor can co-nominate: is that the plan?

The reason I ask is that I'm willing to spend more time and energy here in the PR if I'm confident that the PR requestor was heavily invested in the article and committed to doing the work required to get it ready for FA. Usually, that is demonstrated by a large number of edits (often before the GA and before the PR). So, when the PR requestor is #7 in the edit count, you can see why it may impact the amount of time a reviewer invests.

To clarify: there is nothing wrong with anyone asking for a Peer Review (regardless of how many edits they make); but edit count does matter at FA. Noleander (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have no opinion, but just to say my two edits are probably overrepresented because one was an IABot commit that rescued several refs in a fairly large diff. — Jonathanischoice (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I am sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Also, I am currently the #2 contributor on the article's talk page, which is also a way of contributing to the article that isn't reflected in the main article's stats. Plus, several of the people who are currently ranked higher in main article contributions haven't edited the page in almost a decade, so I anticipate naturally passing them soon just from my own regular contributions. I was the one who submitted the article for GA and worked with the reviewers to make edits to get the article ready for that designation, so I believe I have demonstrated commitment to continuously editing this article page. If other editors would like to co-nominate, I would certainly be willing to work with them. I will post an invitation/solicitation on the talk page before nominating. Edittttor (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I think I'll pass on the Peer Review. Two reasons: (a) the fact that there is not a single major editor that wrote 50% or more of the article, which is the kind of article I normally review. (b) the fact that the subject of the article is running for office during the year 2026. That is correct, no? So there will be a huge number of edits being made to the article throughout 2026. An article cannot be sensibly put thru an FAC nomination while the person is running for office. FAC requires that the article be in a relatively stable condition. My personal opinion is that the article should not go thru FAC until after, say, November 2026.

Of course, a Peer Review is not the same as a FAC nomination. And a Peer Review can certainly be conducted while the subject is running for office. I'm sure other reviewers will be able to do excellent peer reviews. But - for me - it is too much of a moving target :-) Good luck with the article! Noleander (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that bringing this to FAC while the subject is running for office would be problematic. It's pretty obvious that the original 2017 version was paid promotional editing, and the current version reads like a campaign poster: it would certainly be a quick fail based on WP:FACR 1d (neutrality). I guess technically there is no FAC quick-fail, but it would certainly quick fail at GAN for the same reason. RoySmith (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on which parts in the current version read like a campaign poster? it would certainly quick fail at GAN for the same reason. It was recently given GA status, so I don't understand this comment. Edittttor (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm, looking at the GAN review, I don't think it got a thorough review. I also see this is at DYK based on the GA, and I've commented there. RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

You didn't answer my request for specific examples of which parts read like a campaign poster. I would like to improve the article if you find issue with it, but would appreciate if you could point to what you think are issues. Edittttor (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

With the exception of the paragraph on his childhood, the entire article is promotional. It is an endless litany of wonderful things about him, right down to trivial stuff like being captain of his high school sports teams. RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

the entire article is promotional isn't really helpful. The team captain callout does seem to have been mentioned by multiple reliable sources, so while I wouldn't have added it if I were the one writing that section, I can see why it gets a mention in the early life area. It is an irrelevant positive random fact, but it does fit in line with BLPs on other political figures that have achieved GA status so it does seem benign:

• AOC: She came in second in the microbiology category of the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair in 2007 with a research project on the effect of antioxidants on the lifespan of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. In high school, she took part in the National Hispanic Institute's Lorenzo de Zavala (LDZ) Youth Legislative Session. As a student, Ocasio-Cortez also worked her first job, as a hostess in a Westchester County Irish pub.
• Angela Alsobrooks: Alsobrooks first got involved in politics while serving as the president of her high school's student government.
• Dan Gibbs: An athlete and outdoorsman, Gibbs has competed in marathon and ultramarathon running races (including the Leadville Trail 100) and helped coach the Battle Mountain High School cross-country skiing team. He has also volunteered with Habitat for Humanity, Eagle River Clean Up, and the I-70 Clean Up Team, and sat on the boards of Club 20, the High Country Conservation Center, the Vail-Eagle Valley Rotary Club, and Vail Valley Hospital Home Health/Hospice. He has cited being a volunteer youth mentor with the Buddy Mentors program as his most meaningful volunteer experience.
• Brilyn Hollyhand: In April 2018, he served as a one-day Alabama Senate page for Gerald Allen and led the Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance. Hollyhand interviewed the state's attorney general, Steve Marshall; its secretary of state, John Merrill; and Allen that day; by July, he had interviewed including U.S. representative Robert Aderholt and Tuscaloosa mayor Walt Maddox.
• Chelsea Manning: Manning excelled at the saxophone, science, and computers, and created a website at the age of 10. Manning learned how to use PowerPoint, won the grand prize three years in a row at the local science fair, and in sixth grade, took top prize at a statewide quiz bowl.

Edittttor (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The fact that other politician articles are filled with fluff is not a good thing and should not be taken as evidence that such articles should be filled with fluff. The idea that one of these people learned how to use PowerPoint should be considered encyclopedic blows my mind and is surely not the standard for which we should be aiming. RoySmith (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm certainly not defending any of these inclusions, but I do think that the standard that is set by precedence now increasing for this individual doesn't seem right. We should be applying the same standard to all. Edittttor (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)