Talk:Amal Women's Training Center and Moroccan Restaurant/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Anarchyte (talk · contribs) 09:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll do this. Doesn't seem too hard. Anarchyte 09:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Main review

Overall comments/Misc

• Copyvio rating: 21.9% chance of violation of this page.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Are you saying that there is close paraphrasing or that it's fine? Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying it's fine. Anarchyte 09:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

References

• The 3rd reference is unreliable as it's a blog.

This article was published by SISTERS Magazine, so I've updated the reference to show this. Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reference 9 is a primary source. Could you replace this?

I can't find anything to replace this. Since it's not promoting the restaurant in any way I don't think it's a problem. Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• The 13th reference is unreliable as it's a blog.

This reference is indeed a blog, but the author is the founder of the center. WP:SELFPUB states:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I would say that this source satisfies these criteria. Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• Doesn't contain all the information present in the article.

Please provide more information about what you'd like to see here. WP:LEAD states that the lead should be a summary of the most important facts from within the article. It is not a summary of every single piece if information. Please also note that this is not a criterion that can be used to fail a Good Article nomination. Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

History

• conceived of the idea of creating an organization

Reword. "had the idea" is better than "conceived of the idea".

I would disagree, conceived of is clear and concise. Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't speak French. I cannot check the 2nd reference.

In that case most editors assume good faith. Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Belahcen Fitzgerald was inspired by the Association Solidarité Féminine based in Casablanca, which operates a hammam, a patisserie, and a restaurant to help single mothers overcome poverty and social stigma by providing them with shelter, counselling, and vocational training. She decided to begin helping women by teaching them to make baked goods in her family's language center.

Could this be changed? It seems too long for what it's telling the reader.

Do you have a suggestion? Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• able to make more money using their new skills than by begging.

Change to: able to make money using their new skills, rather than begging.

I suppose this could be reworded but I don't think the new wording is any clearer. Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Article: In 2008, Belahcen Fitzgerald began hiring underprivileged Moroccan women to cook for events she organized for her friends.

Reference: "The Amal foundation began unofficially in 2008, when Noora Fitzgerald began organizing lunches for her friends, offering one-off paid opportunities for Moroccan women, whom she would hire to cook and staff the events".

The article doesn't contain some of that information. (Such as "one-off" and "cook and staff")

I'm summarizing here. It means the same thing! Adding "one-off" isn't necessary, "cook and staff" could be added but I don't think it's necessary. Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• After these early trials, Belahcen Fitzgerald sought to create a permanent program to provide support to disadvantaged women.

Is this really needed?

Would be better if that sentence was removed (it's not referenced either) and replace it with something along the lines of: "Fitzgerald found a property to rent and registered Amal Women’s Training Center and Moroccan Restaurant as a non-profit organization in 2012. In early 2013 [...]"

I agree. I've fixed this and added the appropriate reference. Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Restaurant

• The 3rd reference is unreliable as it's a blog.

Addressed above Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reference 9 is a primary source. Could you replace this?

Addressed above Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Trainees

• Article: Participants are selected through partnerships with other non-profits or by the center's social worker, based on the criteria that they are economically disadvantaged and are motivated to train to achieve financial independence.

Reference: "Fatima Al-Zahra weilds HR power and selects the ten young women who will train with Amal. Fatima gently but firmly explains that while there are many “people in need” in Marrakesh, Amal is not a charity. She holds tight to a certain “profile” when selecting the women: demonstrated financial hardship, and clear motivation to work for financial independence."

The article doesn't portray the reference.

There are 2 references for this sentence. What I wrote is a combination of the information from both sources. Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• The 13th reference is unreliable as it's a blog.

Addressed above Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• As of June 2015 center graduates enjoy an 80% rate of employment.

This is kinda promotional. The statistic (in the reference) has a note attached. Might wanna reword the article to comply with that as well.

How is this promotional? It's a fact from a reliable reference. The note attached only says that they receive employment either while still at the center or shortly after. It's not necessary to add this extra information. Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Staff and volunteers

• Article: The managing director is Moulay Hassan Aladlouni, a Moroccan who received his MBA from the City University of New York.

Reference: Amal’s new managing director, Hasan Moulay, adamantly asserts that Amal’s number one priority is to find employment for the organization’s beneficires upon graduation. Since training began on February 10, seven Amal customers – local restaurant and hotel managers themselves – have asked to hire a future Amal graduate.

In no way is this referenced.

Good catch, I'll look into this. Not sure where I got the information about his MBA but I'll remove that line until I find the reference. Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Operation

• , and

Remove the ,.

See here:Wikipedia:Guidance on applying the Manual of Style#Commas. Although it's only an essay, it's widely accepted that use of the oxford comma is fine as long as it's done consistently throughout the article. Comma use in this article is consistent so this should be kept. Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• About 45% of the training center's revenue comes from restaurant sales, 5% from private donations, and the remaining 50% from the Drosos Foundation.

I can't find this in either of the 2 references given.

It's there, reference 15 Rystheguy (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Overall review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: (Pass)

From what I can see, this is closer to a C or Start class than a GA article, sorry. Try to expand it more, remove and rephrase certain sentences and paragraphs (etc). The lead does not cover all the information and there's too many sections for the article. Try to compress it down a bit. Anarchyte 09:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rystheguy: Hi, I didn't look over some of the references well enough, it seems. I'm going to try and get a second opinion on the entire review. I'm sorry for the miss understanding. Anarchyte 12:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Thanks, I appreciate it! Rystheguy (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rystheguy: Please see this section. Anarchyte 09:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion

I see at Good Article nominations that a second opinion was requested, but looking at the GA review, it looks like the article was already failed. I was hoping to get some context on what was going on. Happy to help. CorporateM (Talk) 20:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: I originally failed it but I changed it to 2nd opinion. Anarchyte 01:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Notes

A few small suggestions:

• Can we get the logo image on a transparent background

I agree this would be better. I haven't been able to find a transparent version. Do you know how to make one? This isn't a part of the criteria for a good article, so I don't expect it to hold up the review if we can't find/make a transparent logo. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

here. CorporateM (Talk) 17:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I tried the tool, but when I placed the output image against a different-coloured background it was clear that it did not do a great job. Again, I don't believe this should hold up the review, but I'll keep my eyes open for a transparent version. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• "training them in Moroccan and international cuisine" - can we be specific that this is referring to cooking?

Cuisine is primarily defined as "a characteristic style of preparing food", so I think this is clear. It wouldn't be correct to say "training them in cooking a characteristic style of preparing Moroccan and international food." If the word "cuisine" causes confusion, I suppose I could say "training them in cooking Moroccan and international food", but this doesn't sound as polished to me. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that it's about food, but not whether it's about manufacturing it, studying it from a cultural perspective, taking photos, etc. Most people will probably assume we're talking about cooking (that's what most people do with food eh?), but we should avoid any ambiguity. CorporateM (Talk) 17:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

As I explained above, the word cuisine by definition means the preparation of food, but I have modified the lede as per your suggestion, phrasing it as "training in the preparation of x food" instead of "in x cuisine". Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Nora Belahcen Fitzgerald first conceived of the idea for Amal"

I don't want to say the name of the organization here because at that point she wasn't sure exactly what it was she wanted to create. It seems like all she wanted to do at that point was to create some sort of organization to help women. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Any descriptor would also work. "for helping impovershed women through cooking" CorporateM (Talk) 17:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've addressed this by adding the descriptor "through career training". Thanks! Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• There's quite a bit about the "Association Solidarité Féminine", which is a bit on topic. We could just call it a "similar organization" or something

Okay, I've shortened this a fair bit. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• "over" -> "more than"

Good suggestion, fixed! Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• a little iffy about "Due to the restaurant's early success"

I'm open to changing this, but I'm not sure what I could say. The "early success" refers to the previous sentence explaining that several people had expressed interest in hiring the Amal trainees. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"Local businesses showed an interest in hiring her graduates, which prompted her to..." - or something along those lines. CorporateM (Talk) 17:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated the wording. Good suggestion. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have concerns about some of the sources; this one is a wordpress blog. 11 and 12 are primary sources

I've addressed the references above as a response to Anarchyte expressing the same concerns. I've removed the line about the restaurant serving couscous on Fridays and its reference since it's not necessary information. I also removed the information about the catering service for the same reason. I do think that the blog by the founder and president has merit, as I have outlined above, but I could make changes if absolutely necessary. It's important information that I cannot find anywhere else. I've read every article in English, French, Italian, and Spanish that I could find related to the training center, but most were written before she published this information. I have a Google alert set up and I update the article regularly as more articles appear, so hopefully I will find some other source to replace this reference in the future. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• The images are a bit crowded; I might suggest a gallery format

I think that putting all or most of the images in a gallery would look strange. I could simply remove a single image if it would make it look better maybe? Again, this is not a part of the good article criteria so I don't think it should hold up the review. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing one would also work. CorporateM (Talk) 17:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Since this isn't a part of the criteria for passing this nomination, I think I will leave this for a peer review that I'm planning to request in the future. I appreciate your feedback, though. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, @Anarchyte: for letting me know about the second opinion. I thought I had been watching the page but I wasn't. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM:, Thank you for your suggestions. I've responded to them above under each suggestion. Thanks again for your help! Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Images

• I've taken care of getting a logo on a transparent background and uploaded locally as a Trademark-protected logo. I'll ping @Justlettersandnumbers: here, because he does a lot of copyrights work. I think the copyrights here may not be appropriate. It is a typeface, but the font has unique elements and symbols that are probably copyrightable and even if it does not qualify for copyright protection, it should qualify for trademark protection. CorporateM (Talk) 19:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I am a bit concerned though because the logo now looks very jagged at the edges. I think it was better before with the background being slightly different from the background colour of the infobox. What are your thoughts on this? If you place a coloured background behind your modified logo (in Photoshop, etc.) the problems will be more apparent. I'm curious what your opinion is on this? Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The jaggedness is only apparent when zoomed in. A couple ways to address it would be to either play with the "threshold" in the tool to try to optimize it, or to get a higher rez logo to start with. CorporateM (Talk) 19:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The jaggedness is quite apparent at the default size for the infobox. If you look at the circular elements you'll see that they are no longer circular on the inside. I've played around with the threshold without being able to get a satisfactory output. Maybe if someone wants to edit it using paths in Photoshop. I don't have time to do it myself, but I will keep an eye out for a transparent version. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Done The rest appear to have appropriate copyrights. CorporateM (Talk) 19:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Wrapping it up

@Rystheguy: If you can address the sourcing issues, I would be comfortable passing this as GA (or @Anarchyte: can). You mentioned that the sources were previously discussed, but I think the fact that both GA reviewers raised an issue is a strong indicator that they are a problem. A blog by the founder may qualify as an exception under SPS and I would need to take a closer, but there are no exceptions under which TripAdvisor could be considered a good source. Same with RocketHub. CorporateM (Talk) 19:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Thank you for your work on this nomination. I would like to point out that the TripAdvisor reference accompanies a secondary reference citing the same information. Although it is a primary reference, this type of primary reference is allowed under WP:PSTS, which states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The straightforward statement that a restaurant is 3rd on TripAdvisor certainly qualifies as being a statement of fact. The same goes for RocketHub: the first reference is supported by a secondary reference, and the second is a statement of fact. Although these 2 references are primary, the article text supported by them does not "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source", and there is no "original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". These are therefore appropriate sources for this article as per WP:PSTS.

I'm also interested in your take on my query above, about the quality of the logo you modified. Do you think it is better to have a lower-quality image with jagged edges that has a transparent background than to have a higher-qualtiy logo with a background that is a slightly different colour from the infobox background? It looks very low quality, for example, if you look closely at the center of the A's in "amal" (which were previously perfect, smooth circles), you'll notice the now-jagged edges. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

TripAdvisor isn't just a primary source, it's a user-generated one falling under WP:USERGENERATED.This is not a strong secondary source; it's a primary source and a blog. I'm not comfortable passing it as GA with these kinds of sources. You may seek a third opinion if you prefer, however. CorporateM (Talk) 20:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: From what I can see, TripAdvisor does not at all fall under WP:USERGENERATED, perhaps you could point out exactly which sentence supports your claim? Specifically, can you tell me which criteria this reference fails under WP:SELFSOURCE? There is certainly no room for interpretation here.

As for saying that Make Every Woman Count is not a strong secondary source, what is your criteria for this? If you search for this organization, you'll find that it is discussed by many reliable news organizations, such as BBC News, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, etc. There is also a Wikipedia article about its founder. Also, I'm still curoius about your opinion on my question above about the logo.

If you don't have more to add, then I will respectively request a third opinion. Thanks again, Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Please seek a third opinion. Thanks. CorporateM (Talk) 21:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, @CorporateM: I've added a note to the template stating that a 3rd review is needed, but it doesn't appear on the nomination page. Is there something you have to do as the reviewer to draw attention to this? Also, I'm still interested in your opinion on my question above about the logo. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the template only allows up to one second opinion. I might actually suggest taking it to RSN[1], since it's specifically about sources. The key to a good RSN post is to be very specific about which sources, for what text. CorporateM (Talk) 23:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

So it seems the third opinion is in regards to the tripadvisor source, so I'll focus on that.

The purpose of WP:USERGENERATED and more broadly WP:SELFPUBLISH is that those kinds of sources are not reliable for supporting claims within the article. For example, If I were to say that the Moroccan Restaurant serves Venezuelan cuisine, I could not use a Tripadvisor post to source that as it is not verifiable. However, that does not seem to be the way the source is being used. The claim is As of July 2015 the restaurant is ranked fourth among restaurants in Marrakesh on TripAdvisor and the source is to show that it is indeed ranked fourth. In this case I think that it more approriately falls under WP:PRIMARY as it is being used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. The source, Tripadvisor, says that it is ranked fourth in Marrakesh, and the article says that, on Tripadvisor, it is ranked fourth in Marrakesh.

So I think it's fine in this instance. I wonder why Tripadvisor, as opposed to more reliable reviews and rankings was used at all. I'd be more concerned with the fact that much of this article is based upon primary sources and probably contributes to a borderline non-neutral tone. But I'll leave that to the previous two reviewers to make a call on. Wugapodes (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: How are the other references? If the TripAdvisor is fine, I'm taking it most of the other refs are valid as well? Anarchyte 06:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wugapodes:, thank you for your opinion.

I just want to make sure that we're all aware of which references are primary here. From the discussion above, the references that the reviewers were concerned with are:

1. TripAdvisor
2. RocketHub (2 separate references)
3. Nora Belahcen Fitzgerald's blog

Those are 4 references of the 15 used in the article. The rest are secondary, reliable sources. WP:SELFPUB states:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I don't think that any of those 4 sources violates any of those terms. They aren't promoting the subject, there's no doubt as to the authenticity, and the article is not based primarily on primary sources. In fact, only about 4 or 5 sentences are cited by primary sources. And of those sentences, all but 1 are also cited by a secondary source backing the claim. I'll address each reference below:

1. The sentence about the restaurant being 4th on TripAdvisor is also cited by a secondary source that states that same thing. I chose to also include TripAdvisor as a second reference to this claim. I don't think that removing the TripAdvisor reference, and leaving this one would strengthen the article at all.
2. The founder's blog is used to cite 2 sentences, each of which has an accompanying secondary source. I've included her blog because it provides slightly more specific information as to how trainees are chosen and educated. Again, I could remove the reference to her blog for these 2 sentences and those sentences would still be cited by the 2 secondary sources, but would removing those strengthen the article at all?
3. Finally we have the RocketHub references. The first reference is accompanied by a secondary source. The second RocketHub reference follows the sentence "Encouraged by this outcome, the center completed a second round of crowdfunding on RocketHub in 2014, raising more than $9600, which was used to purchase additional customer seating, uniforms for the trainees, and more kitchen equipment." I don't think that is promotional, and I think that the information can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge as per WP:PRIMARY. If you're still opposed to this sentence, I'll just remove it.

The suggestion that Wugapodes made about using other more reliable reviews and rankings instead of TripAdvisor is valid and should be discussed. The secondary source that is cited felt that the restaurant's ranking on TripAdvisor was notable enough to include in their article, and I agree. I'm not sure what other "more reliable reviews and rankings" you're referring to. There doesn't seem to be anything else that ranks the restaurant that I could find. Are you thinking that a guidebook or something similar would be better? I wouldn't think that a guidebook would be considered a very good source. Since there's only 1 website that a customer could use to review this restaurant after eating there, wouldn't that be the best to use as reference to the claim? There are over 500 reviews on TripAdvisor, and after only 2 years the restaurant is ranked 4th in a city that has over 600 restaurants on TripAdvisor. I think that's notable and something worth mentioning. Once again, I would rather that this article didn't fail its nomination due to a single reference, so if it comes down to it I'll just remove the sentence. I appreciate any additional feedback from the 3 reviewers on the issue.

I appreciate the time you all have put into reviewing this. I am confident that the information in this article is accurate and well referenced, and will continue to work to improve it based on your feedback. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You're correct about the primary sourcing. I think I got some of the sources confused. My bad. I struck that above.

While I think that WP:PRIMARY takes precedence in this case over WP:USERGENERATED, the fact that user generated reviews and rankings are by-and-large unreliable and unverifiable is still a concern. When I said "more reliable reviews" I wasn't referring to any specific one, but a class, those ranked by a reliable and verifiable expert, for example how Michelin stars, or a New York Times review would be more reliable and verifiable for a restaurant in New York than would TripAdvisor. While I don't take particular issue with this instance, I'd use caution in the future as TripAdvisor is generally unreliable for anything except the fact that TripAdvisor says it. Wugapodes (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wugapodes:, thank you for your very reasonable and well-informed response. I think that in this instance I'm going to just remove that sentence and the accompanying references from the article to prevent any controversy in the future. Again, I appreciate you taking the time to participate in what has become a very long, messy debate. The fate of this nomination is now in the hands of the first two reviewers. @Anarchyte and CorporateM: what do you think? Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rystheguy: I reread it and came over a few issues.

As of June 2015 center graduates enjoy an 80% rate of employment.

Would be better as As of June 2015, studies have shown the former employees receive an 80% rate of employment.

(Or something along those lines)

Reworded Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of the sections could probably be expanded, such as "Staff and volunteers". These sections feel too short.

There's not much I can do to expand those sections since I have used every source I have been able to find on the internet in multiple languages, and have included all relevant information in the article. Do you have any suggestions after reading the references yourself? Section length is not a part of this nomination review, so I'm assuming that your issue here relates to WP:LAYOUT? The MOS states "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." Since the policy doesn't define what "too short" means, do you think that the way the sections are organized "inhibit[s] the flow of the prose?" Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Language classes are offered in Arabic literacy (because many of the trainees are illiterate)

Why does this bit of information "(because many of the trainees are illiterate)" come after the first language and not at the end, where it would be fit in better?

This is because the women are illiterate, meaning they can't read Arabic. If I put it at the end of the sentence, it would refer to English and French as well. I'm not illiterate because I can't read Urdu or Arabic, but if I couldn't read English then I would be. I think it's important to keep this piece of information so it's clear why women in an Arabic-speaking country are learning Arabic. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

After "Internships with outside businesses prepare the women for careers after graduating from the center", the paragraph just sort of, stops. Where's the reference for this? Is it 13 or 14, as shown in the next line?

I've reworded this and added 2 references supporting the claim. Internships was poor wording on my part, it now explains that the center helps women find employment after graduating (not necessarily through internships). Thanks for catching this! Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't look into any of the references, all I did was re-proof read it. Anarchyte 08:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Thank you for your response, I have addressed your comments above. It concerns me that you haven't looked at the references, since that is a major part of the responsibility that comes along with reviewing GA nominations. Especially concerning is the fact that you're not familiar with the GA criteria after having reviewed 9 nominations and your participation in the GA Cup. You began your initial review by failing my nomination outright, which, if you were familiar with the guidelines for reviewing nominations, you would know that the problems you brought up did not qualify my nomination for immediate failure. I responded to all of your concerns and you admitted that you had made a mistake and had not paid enough attention to the references. Now you're saying that you still have not checked the references? You need to read references carefully to see whether the content of the article is supported. If you have a problem with an individual reference, then seek outside help as you did with @CorporateM:. CorporateM said the nomination was almost ready to be approved but we disagreed as to the validity of 2 references (TripAdvisor and RocketHub) so a 3rd opinion was requested. @Wugapodes: agreed with me that those references were fine in the manner in which they were used, but to prevent any problems in the future I elected to remove the information about TripAdvisor voluntarily. Now it's up to you and CorporateM to discuss whether this article has passed the GA criteria. Keep in mind that nothing outside of this criteria should be considered when making your decision to pass or fail the nomination. Thank you, Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rystheguy: I didn't look over the references because I looked over them earlier and read the entire conversation between you, CorporateM and Wugapodes. It seems to me, after a quick look over the references they seem to be good now. The TripAdvisor section was removed and the RocketHub is fine as it's got another reference accompanying it. As I'm new to the whole GA review system, I'd like to thank you and the 2nd+3rd reviewers for helping me . I'll let CorporateM and/or Wugapodes speak before I/them pass or fail it.Anarchyte 11:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anarchyte:Okay thank you for your response. I know you're relatively new to Wikipedia and I don't want to discourage you because you're doing work that is helpful, but it is absolutely important to follow Wikipedia policy, MOS, and carefully study the documentation before attempting any sort of new initiative on Wikipedia. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a pretty clear quick-fail from my perspective. Take a look at citation 14. Citation 13 is a primary source and just a directory of standard bios of award winners. 12 is a self-published blog. 8 is a blog from a video production company. Citation 2 is a blog from another non-profit. Even if the two RocketHub sources (7&10) are considered acceptable primary sources, it's inappropriate for a GA article to have half of its citations be primary sources, self-published sources, blogs, and whatever citation 14 is. CorporateM (Talk) 11:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: You had previously said: "If you can address the sourcing issues, I would be comfortable passing this as GA (or @Anarchyte: can). You mentioned that the sources were previously discussed, but I think the fact that both GA reviewers raised an issue is a strong indicator that they are a problem. A blog by the founder may qualify as an exception under SPS and I would need to take a closer, but there are no exceptions under which TripAdvisor could be considered a good source. Same with RocketHub."

After completing your previous review your problem was with those two sources and suggested I get a third opinion. I recieved a third opinion that agreed with me and now you're saying the article should have been failed immediatly? From WP:GA?:

An article can be failed without further review (known as quickfailing or quick failing) if, prior to the review:

1. It has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid or needs new cleanup banners.
2. It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria.
3. It contains copyright infringements.

In all other cases, a full review against the six criteria is to be conducted and the nominator given a chance to address any issues.

It seems to me, CorporateM, that you don't take critisim well since your messages have been consistenly curt, and your latest comments are such a departure from your previous opinion. Now 2 out of the 3 editors who have checked this nomination are okay with it, but you're now taking a harsher tone? Wikipedia is built on discourse and consensus, and neither I nor you are experts in every area. If you criticize an article, you should fully expect the author to respond, and it might not always be what you want to hear. But that is why we discuss problems like this to ensure that an agreement can be reached and that Wikipedia's policies are being upheld. You have repeatedly made accusations without reading what has already been discussed, and when I address those comments you fail to respond. How can we come to a consensus this way? Your GA review of George Meany has a similar harsh tone, making several accusations that the reviewer disputes and you never readdress. Perhaps you should put more effort into reviewing in a way that is constructive and not accusatory. I suggest you read WP:RGA, especially the sections about mistakes to avoid in reviews, and in particular the mistakes of:

1. Giving problems, not solutions
2. Imposing your personal criteria

Now I'll address what you said above about references 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14. Above all I'd like to point out that the vast majority of information in my article comes from references 4, 5, and 6. Those other references are used to supplement other citations, and are more often than not used to cite a single sentence or 2. You say that it's inappropriate for a GA to have half of its sources primary, but isn't it more important what percentage of the article is sourced by these references or whether they're accompanied by other secondary sources? After all, you say that yourself here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Notability that "The only thing that really matters is whether there are enough reliable secondary sources to serve as the primary basis of the article." So surely you don't think that we should be counting references to determine where the majority of the information in the article is coming from. Furthermore, your own essay (Wikipedia:BLPAWARDS) states that

"The significance of an award or ranking can be justified if the award is notable enough for its own Wikipedia page or if secondary sources (independent from both the organization and the award-organizers) cover that the person was honored with it, with more than a brief mention or directory listing."

So when you, for example, criticize the inclusion of the citation of the grant from the Drosos Foundation, wouldn't that be acceptable, since

1. the Drosos Foundation is an organization that is quite well covered in the media, certainly notable and deserving of its own Wikipedia article (full disclosure, I created the Drosos stub on the English Wikipedia, but it already existed on several other Wikipedias);
2. and several of the other references (independent from both Amal and Drosos) mention that the Drosos Foundation awarded the Amal Center with the grant, including citation 4, which you don't seem to have a problem with?

You seem to be getting hung up with the word "primary", but you need to think critically about why it is that secondary sources are preferred. If an article is sourced only by primary sources, then the article may be overly promotional. Additionally, some primary sources can be interpreted in several ways, and in these cases, since it is not possible to determine how a source should be properly interpretated, it should not be used (without an accompanying secondary source). IF the primary source simply says that an organization has awarded a grant, or that it is ranked 4th among restaurants in the city, then it is NOT open to interpretation and any reasonable person will be able to verify the claim. Primary sources ≠ Bad sources, we just have to be careful about how they are used.

I think that this review has gotten out of hand and is among the most disappointing experiences I have had with Wikipedia to date. I invite @Anarchyte and Wugapodes: to offer their opinion on what I or CorporateM has written above, though I completely understand if you'd prefer to take a step back. Ry's the Guy ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

First I'd like to pour everyone some tea and say that I'm glad Anarchyte is helping with the GA backlog, that CorporateM gave a second opinion (since many second opinions go unanswered), and that Rystheguy not only helped write this article but has been so patient in what seems to be a long review process which can be taxing on everyone.

With all that out of the way, I think the article is good to go, but it's not my review. I think Ry's the Guy has done a good job addressing the points of the review and for things he didn't change he gave very reasonable responses that I think justify no change. So, I'd suggest we list the article.

The rest is less about the article and review, and more about the review process so if you care about improving the article, it's probably not worth reading any farther. To be honest, a lot of this would probably be better on your user talk pages but we're here already so we might as well commit, especially since it does have some relevance to the review.

Now I'm also new to GA reviews, only starting with the GA cup this year so take what I say with a grain of salt. To briefly address some of the stuff I've read since I was last here I personally don't like quick failing articles (My only two were an WP:IAR to move the process forward, and the other was unreadable), we don't have deadlines here so giving someone the chance to address problems isn't hurting anyone. I also find what the GA criteria are not at least as important, if not more important than the actual GA criteria. In the end I feel the question we need to be asking ourselves is "Is this a good article?" Is this the kind of article I would recommend to people who don't know anything about the topic? Do people (especially the reviewer) come away with a clear and comprehensive understanding of the topic. We aren't looking for brilliant prose or perfection, rather, goodness. It's not okay to let things within the criteria slide, and we should point out things outside the criteria to fix (as optional to the result). However we shouldn't get so caught up in the criteria to lose sight of our purpose: to give editors good ways to improve the article and build a better encyclopedia (which is particularly why I'm not a fan of quick fails). I lurk over at WP:RFA and they talk about WP:NOBIGDEAL. I feel like a similar thing applies here. The process is important,^[dubious] but in the end, we probably shouldn't be putting the GA status on a pedestal.

So my best advice is to read policy and essays, re-read them, and then do your best. That's what I aim for and it seems to be working. I hope that helps everyone. Just give me another ping if you want my input on the review again. Wugapodes (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Thank you for your opinion and all your work throughout this process.

If someone else wants to pass it, it's none of my business. One example where the primary source is clearly inappropriate is stuff like "encouraged by this outcome", which is part of the sentence cited to the primary source (citation 10). I also don't think it's appropriate to use the primary source to describe how they spent the money, given how often funding is mis-appropriated. If it is used as a source at all, it should be for the dollar amount only. It's pretty routine in a GA review to vet the sources and I don't think the problems with them are trivial. I am of the mind that GA articles should be reviewed sentence by sentence, not just passed if they look good at-a-glance. It's someone else's review though - I am providing a second opinion. My opinion has been provided, so my role here is done. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 08:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM: That is excellent feedback and I have removed those parts you mentioned above. Thank you, and I appreciate your participation throughout this process.

Final result

After all this time, the article has been rewritten and most, if not all, of the bad references have been removed or changed. In its current state, I think it passes all of the criteria I listed above (in the original review). If this article ever goes down in quality, it can always be put up for GA reassessment. To fail this entire article due to one primary reference would be nonsense. I'm going to pass this. Anarchyte 09:53, 25 July 2015 (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.