Talk:Rabia sign

Rabia sign was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 4, 2015, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rabia sign/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should have this to you within a couple of days. I mainly focus on copyediting issues. Thanks, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments[edit]

I'm afraid that the lead appears somewhat disorganised and out of place - typically with an article this size it should have three main paragraphs, with each paragraph almost the same size. The sentence "The gesture is made by raising four fingers of any hand and folding the thumb" could easily be merged with a paragraph above and the last sentence "Egyptian and non-Egyptian politicians are regularly seen making Rabia gesture" could be clarified into another paragraph. Also, who are the non-Egyptian politicians that use this gesture? I don't see MPs in London using this gesture for example!
Per WP:LEADCITE, citations in the lead are generally discouraged if it's not referencing controversial information
"The stylized word 'R4BIA' is sometimes interpreted as an acronym" - what is the acronym?
"They also denounce linking it with terrorism" - who is 'they'?
In a recent report, Human Rights Watch said at least 1,150 demonstrators were killed" - when was the report? If I recall the demonstration was in 2011?
The "Appearance of the sign" section has a few problems: the "Name" section should be converted to prose as should the "As an acronym" subsection. Also the Gesture and Graphical description sections are very short, could they be merged or expanded to improve the flow of the article?
Graphical description section entirely unreferenced
"Egyptian Al Ahly footballer Ahmed Abd El-Zaher" - should just read to Egyptian footballer Ahmed Abd El-Zaher
Media section unreferenced
Should the World Rabia Day contain a quote template?
Opposing parody section very short, but be expanded if it wants to retain its level 2 header

On hold[edit]

There are some concerns here that definitely need addressing if this were to meet the GA criteria and at the moment I'm afraid it does not. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and if they have all been addressed I'll take another look. Let me know if you have any questions, thanks ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - not listed[edit]

I am sorry to say that at this time Rabia sign does not meet the GA criteria. The time has expired and seeing as the main contributors are inactive, I guess that the safe thing to do is to close this GAN for now. Feel free to renominate once everything is addressed ☯ Jaguar ☯ 21:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rabia-sign a general sign against dictatorship?[edit]

Dear all, I would like to contribute against the last paragraph in "Politics" saying: "The sign became common not only among protesters of the Muslim Brotherhood or Islamists in general, but it has been considered to be a sign that indicates call for freedom and putting an end to dictatorships." The references given are by a local journal of Berlin (-> Prenzlauer Berg) and the content is simply not true, only because a reporter said so. The revolutionary Egyptians, who are neither with the actual political regime, nor with the MB are distancing themselves very much from the MB and their rabia-sign. Still they are against dictatorship! I am sorry I can't provide an evidence for this, but an opinion of a reporter is still an opinion and not fact.

Hello User:Pianchi, obviously you did not read the source. The cited journal does not quote its own opinion, but that of the "Islam- und Politikwissenschaftler Thorsten Gerald Schneiders". This means, de:Thorsten Gerald Schneiders is not cited as journalist, but as scientist by Christiane Abelein. I don't know which "revolutionary Egyptians" you intended to refer to (e.g. April 6 Youth Movement co-founder Israa Abdel Fattah, even though nominated for Nobel Peace Prize, defended the "state-led massacres of several hundred Islamists over the summer" and said: “Our army should do whatever it wants to kill these terrorists”), but you should use sources indeed, to provide evidence for what you want to have mentioned in the article. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rabia sign name as acronym[edit]

i think no need for this section the origin of the name is the number four as rabia means "fourth (feminine)" so represented by the number four the four fingers. using 'four' instead of 'A' in "rabia" to become "R4bia" is also to confirm the meaning of four as 'A' resemble '4'.

'Ready For Brotherhood Independent Army' is a fake interpretation of media against rabia sit-in. the first citation is discussing that the interpretation is fake "wrong citation". the second citation from pro-coup channel 'alnahar' with no evidence or any reliable source "unreliable citation". Logiphile (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned Islamist bias out of this article[edit]

Before my edits, this page was heavily biased in favor of the Brotherhood, and looked more like a Start-class article, with tons of puffery, POV, words to watch, and other unwanted things on Wikipedia. Then I came to the article's rescue, cleaning up a large amount of the page's trash and bullshit. Now it looks a lot better than it did before. Why not nominate it for GA status then? Go ahead, expand this article with more information. Zakawer (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]