# Talk:Zainab Salbi

In response to an active AfD, this article has seen an uptick in editing on the BLP by an editor involved on the AfD, which beforehand was practically unsourced. Among the sourcing added since has seen WP:CITEKILL on book review links which in this article's context are only showing that the BLP subject did write them, tertiary sources (reference/encyclopedic works), non-independent, unreliable/unknown reliability, and self-published works. Much of these sources have already been spoken upon in the AfD. Especially in consideration that this is a BLP, and in consideration of the AfD-related editing / potential influence on discussion and decisions, it is meaningful to add necessary maintenance tags. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

User:DragonflySixtyseven advised some improvements in the AfD, which is what has been done. Among the sourcing added since has seen WP:CITEKILL on book review links which in this article's context are only showing that the BLP subject did write them- it's useful IMO at least to establish that one clause of WP:NAUTHOR is met. The first clause (significant or well-known) is debatable and depends on intepretations, but demonstrating one part of NAUTHOR is useful not WP:CITEKILL. They're also included in a single citation for each book so I'm confused where CITEKILL is applicable. To a reader, it's not citation clutter, notability bomb, or needless repetition, which are among some of the examples. No opinion on the tertiary sourcing debate between you and Beccaynr. VickKiang (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
The improvements so far have mostly been sources for a few of the (non-significant) honors, poor sourcing, duplicating over content and sources from Women for Women International which likely shouldn't have been done, or sourcing not demonstrating notability already pointed out as such as on the AfD especially non-independent/primary material. That is, yes some improvement has been made on not having this be an uncited mess, but little in the way of sourcing proving notability per guidelines.
It doesn't meet any clause of WP:NAUTHOR in any case. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." is not demonstrated here nor on the AfD. You say it's debatable and depends on interpretations, but stretching it to be synonymous with WP:NBOOK is not right.
As others have pointed out on the AfD, it's more useful towards WP:NBOOK "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.". To quote a couple explanations from the AfD, "Coverage of an author's work does not equal notability for the author."[1] and "Reviews of Ms. Salbi's books are excellent for showing notability of the books, but she is not the books and they are not her"[2].
Conflating WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NBOOK is erroneous, and by that interpretation, almost every book that meets WP:NBOOK satisfies WP:NAUTHOR for the author too.
Regarding citekill, this is a form of "notability bomb", especially in the context of having been added to try to provide notability. There's little reason to have any of the links considering it's not in contention or needs "proof" that the books were written by her, for which there's an ISBN link too. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
So, you quote an explanation based on one user. Sure, AfD isn't a vote count but there are four users here (excluding me) supporting retention and yourself supporting deletion. You say it's debatable and depends on interpretations, but stretching it to be synonymous with WP:NBOOK is not right- it is a completely reasonable interpretation, you may believe it's not right but that some users believe that those help to establish notability IMHO would mean that these are not uncontroversially WP:CITEKILL. But we're not going to agree anyway, so let's respectfully disagree. VickKiang (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Please keep AfD discussions to the AfD. This is a Talk page section for maintenance tagging. Briefly, those who have vouched for keeping have been made arguments to avoid in deletion discussions especially WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:VAGUEWAVE, the claim that a book having reviews (with little in the way of explanation) = author is automatically notable, and the claim that interviews of a subject talking about the subject are independent of the subject which is egregiously wrong.
It's is completely reasonable in your perspective but rather unique otherwise, but if you think it merits inclusion in policy, please suggest your idea to the Village pump to propose that WP:NBOOK and WP:NAUTHOR should directly overlap in the manner proposed. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
It's surprising that you're stating this given that you started this post and went into three paragraphs regarding how WP:NAUTHOR is failed. Your explanations of WP:NBOOK and WP:NAUTHOR in both here and other forums (including various user talk pages) is significantly longer than what I had wrote. But, I'll listen to your advice and refrain from posting more.
Moreover, you believe my comment is rather unique otherwise. So basically the perspectives of myself and other keep votes hare in no way policy based? If you state that my belief is egregiously wrong, while, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 75#WP:AUTHOR is two decent book reviews enough? I see no consensus that this perspective would be so wrong as you suggested. If you continue to state inaccurately that others are WP:VAGUEWAVE, that's up to you, and let's see how this discussion will go. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I will kindly ask you again to keep AfD discussions to the AfD discussion page. You are WP:BLUDGEONING here on a matter not related to this Talk page section. Thank you. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your later comment that I am BLUDGEONING- I've commented on all of these forums substantially less than you, but if you believe my conduct is inappropriate, feel free to take it to my user talk page or WP:ANI. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
SouthernNights What is the reason for engaging in further edit warring and removing maintenance tags? Being "reliable tertiary sources" or not is not what the the  This tertiary source  reuses information from other sources but does not name them. template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Tertiary is necessarily for. I hope you know too that like primary and non-independent sourcing, tertiary sources do not presume notability. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

With regard to: Joanna L. Krotz (January 1, 2012). "PROFILE: Zainab Salbi – Helping Women Recover from War". Global Women's Issues: Women in the World Today, extended version. Bureau of International Information Programs, United States Department of State. ISBN 978-1-622-39925-3. Retrieved 27 December 2022. 
The tagging and removal [3] does not appear supported by the WP:USESPS essay, because the author is Joanna L. Krotz and the publisher is the United States Department of State. I think this source should be restored to the article, without the tag. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The report was created by the US Department of State with contributors for various sections, and the site attributes both  the author (twice) and publisher of the published work as "Bureau of International Information Programs, United States Department of State". This government report has multiple contributors but written as part of the Bureau of International Information Programs report and the source rightly attributes authorship of the work to the Bureau.
The original PDF from the US government does the same on the third page: "UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL INFORMATION PROGRAMS"
There's also questions around the non-independence of the subject (the statements by the subject only appear to be on this report, such that they appear to be made to this report) and source reliability around using government publications about bios/BLPs in general and especially for contentious information. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 08:55, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @Beccaynr. And there is some urgency to have thins properly sources while this article is at AFD. CT55555(talk) 12:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

There seems seemed to be good reason to add the COI tag. As I write 12.2% of the article was written by that user. Do editors think 12.2% represents a "major" contributor, or have we reached the point with subsequent edits from others that we can remove the tag. I lean towards taking the tag off, but it's not a slam dunk, so seeking input from others. CT55555(talk) 12:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I found myself here by wandering around Wikipedia, but wanted to ask why would % of contributions to an article determine whether there is COI? -Vipz (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Because the tag is "a major contributor to the article..." so the tag is only appropriate if the contribution is "major". CT55555(talk) 13:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
A significant portion of the article has been modified since December 24 so the 12.2% (wherever you're getting this from) is skewed. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
12.2% comes from here. It is not skewed, the article has been improved since the tag was added, so the tag is decreasingly relevant. That's not skewed, that's my point. Tags are a signal for others to improved and edit, which has occured. CT55555(talk) 13:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
The article has improved in terms of citing yes, because it had almost nothing before, but BLP violations, primary/non-independent sources, self-published sources, and tertiary sources do not presume notability. If we only include sources that presume notability, almost everything would be removed except for a few, mainly on the sources trivially used for honors. That these sources are being added for potential WP:GAME considering they were pointed out as problematic in the AfD is an issue with regards to influencing the AfD erroneously. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't think people are gaming the system. People are improving the article. This is a good thing. And something that an admin who voted delete asked us to do. Seeing a tag, making improvements that the tag indicates are needed, removing the tag, is a good thing that we should encourage. Please assume good faith. CT55555(talk) 13:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@CT55555 I am assuming good faith. If the tone came across poorly, then sorry. That same admin, who only got involved because of the (assuming well intended) poor arguments being made to keep, also pointed out gross misunderstandings in your and others' (including another admin getting it wrong) interpretations of notability criteria, even respectfully pointing out how you got it backwards. I hope you did not ignore DragonflySixtyseven's advice and expertise.
I understand this article is of special importance to WikiProject Women in Red, which has a focus on preventing red links (deletions) and making blue links (creations). 3 stated members, including you, have been very active in both the AfD and in response on this article as a result. Also, the notability tag you removed was not necessarily justified. We need to be honest with the objective fact that, regardless of the AfD, very little of the sourcing added is doing anything to presume or provide notability (almost all tertiary, primary/non-independent, self-published including the "staff" profiles just added, or unreliable). As long as we're both accepting that, I can assume your good faith without reservation. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Your repeated addition of a duplicate tag (notability plus AFD) is unhelpful and seems like edit warring, but I have more important things to worry about. I saw someone disagree with me and I'm pondering that, the closing admin can weigh things up, I don't feel obliged to reply to every comment made, and this is an approach that I hope others consider too. Primary sources for verification of non controversial details like board roles, is normal. I don't think this article is of special important to Women In Red. I've never noticed any article be identified as more or less important than others. I think all that is happening is that there are several editors who take an interest in deletion discussions about biographical articles about women. I should not need to convince you of my good faith edits, that should be your starting assumption. CT55555(talk) 14:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
(Restoring this comment from before. Wikipedia logged me out (probably sign-in timeout) and it switched to a remote IP address. That was not intentional).
Of special importance compared to other editors, not within the WikiProject. The WikiProject is focused on exactly these kinds of articles. It's the stated objective.
Primary sourcing (in cases where it is allowable) for verification isn't the issue. It's that they do nothing for presuming notability, which is the main point of the AfD. I never asked you had to convince me. All I said is I'd have no doubt at all as long as we're aligned on a basic objective fact of the article.
While the sourcing added may (unintentionally) skew the perspective of more recently involved editors on the AfD, and may even skew the perspective of the final review, because I don't know if anyone else has deep dived every source, the important consideration is that "having sources" doesn't mean automatically notable per WP:NBASIC. If the sources don't fit the threshold, then it doesn't. I'm frankly surprised by how incredibly little sourcing fitting notability criteria there is for the subject. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
(IP edit removed, but replying anyway) I made clear in my first comment what sources I felt bolstered notability in my opening comment. This article is getting into WP:SNOW keep territory, so you will hopefully understand if I withdraw from replying, it doesn't seem like you and I are going to reach consensus. Also, just pointing that you appear to have logged out and are now editing from an IP address. Be careful about commenting at AFD like that, it can give the impression that you are two people, assuming you are indeed the same person in this conversation. CT55555(talk) 14:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Please don't assume bad faith. I did not deliberately sign-out. It was likely the timeout on my sign-in session that corresponded with when I posted and so then the post showed up as the remote IP address my device is on.Yes, your comment was that because 2 reviews exist for a book by the author, the subject is automatically notable. An uninvolved admin entered the AfD to respond to you on how wrong that is. I hope you at least took something from that. Regardless of WP:SNOW, the Keep arguments are either spurious, or making specifically arguments to avoid. 4 of them only came after the mass editing on the article (adding sources that do not presume notability) and those took a surface-level look at the situation judging from the WP:JUSTAPOLICY arguments. It's easy to see a lot of tertiary, unreliable, self-published, and primary/non-independent sources that do nothing to add notability . I'll likely make a Talk section evaluating every source since I'm the only person who has taken that time and effort, digging into ProQuest, Gale, and so on, to check on each source added. There have also been blatant BLP violations and original research/failed verification added and some still on the article. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@Vipz: There is no set percentage. It could be much higher, and it may turn out that the content is fine (theoretically), after editors have reviewed it. The COI editor edited last in July 2021. Since then, there were many edits by other editors. They have obviously read the article. It is being worked on, yet there are no concrete outstanding claims about the need for COI-related cleanup on this talk page. Inline citing needs to be better, but this isn't about whether the article is problem-free in general, it's about whether it is anomalous in a way pertaining to conflict of interest specifically. Therefore, I will remove the tag, per instructions at Template:COI. —Alalch E. 12:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I see it the same as you. CT55555(talk) 13:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@Alalch E., @CT55555: I asked that because I'm seeing a fallacy - consider this: what if it were a high-edit-traffic article with thousands of previous edits, where a contributor with clear COI recently made, say, a hundred, which would still make it a very low percentage of total edits to the article? -Vipz (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
It's an interesting problem to imagine. Thankfully, not one we are dealing with here. CT55555(talk) 13:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@CT55555: Ah, excuse me, I thought we were talking about having {{Connected contributor}} at the top of the talk page. Shouldn't it be added? To explain further my previous comment: one COI user could add as much content in 10 contributions as another could in 100, therefore percentage is not the greatest indicator whether their contribution to the article is major, although it might be helpful to imagine how much is there to go through. COI is COI, regardless of how much one contributes to an article they might have COI with. -Vipz (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
[ec] Your scenario happens. Such a situation would not normally require the tag because a concerned editor could revert to the non-COI affected revision and bring the questionable edits up for discussion on the talk page without the COI tag, because it isn't an ongoing problem (in the then-current revision) anymore. The tag is usually for when there is no reasonable "healthy revision" to revert to, i.e. when the problems are very deeply rooted and not easily resolved by one editor, or perhaps resolvable by one editor, but it could take a while. Typical COI-tagged articles are created by or have been heavily edited from early on by the COI contributor. —Alalch E. 13:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I see the point you are making. But I think:
12.2% of a fairly short article
The edits being before lots of reviews and edits
means that the article is OK. But I'm not very sure about these tags (hence starting this). So I lean towards it not being necessary, but feel free to favour the opinions of people who have more experience of this specific area. CT55555(talk) 13:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
My initial comment had a typo "seems" instead of "seemed" I meant it made sense at the time it was added, not now. So sorry, that may have thrown you in the wrong direction. CT55555(talk) 13:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm late to this discussion but I also support removing the COI tag. The percentage of edits by that COI account is extremely low at this point. Add in so many editors updating the article with reliably sourced info and the tag can be removed.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that later-life information was added to the Early life and education section [4], and I think the later-life information should probably be split and attributed to the date of publication (per MOS:RELTIME). We could create a Personal life section to include information from sources where she discusses her later relationship with Islam. E.g. Harper's Bazaar Arabia states in 2015, Zainab’s conviction that, “God in Islam is all the emotions which I love. God is mercy, God is kindness, God is love,” is at the heart of the message she is communicating to her audience of millions, one story at a time. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, going on about her relationship with her religion feels a little excessive. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but it'll take a lot of convincing. DS (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the above. In all the time I spent finding sources to improve the article, I didn't notice her religion come up other than reviews of her memoir which often stated she grew up in a secular household. CT55555(talk) 15:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Before the article was nominated for deletion, the nominator removed the American Muslims and Iraqi Muslims categories from the article [5], and has since questioned the reliability of the award-winning Yemen Times at RSN [6] after a YT source identifying her as a Muslim was added to the article [7]. I continue to think that at minimum, the Early life and education section should focus on her early life and education, which is separate from whether and how much content should be included in a Personal life section about her later life, relationship with religion, etc. Beccaynr (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I did argue at the RSN that Yemen Times should be considered reliable for things like this. I realise that my answer above agreed with DS's point, but didn't answer your question.  So my answer to your question is yes, we should separate early life from later life.
While I don't support lot of content about her religion (but could be persuaded if sources support this) I would support adding categories that were removed and mentioning her religion, if the source was the Yemen Times. CT55555(talk) 16:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I updated the article to help keep the section focused, and I figure a Personal life section could be developed with information from sources that appears WP:DUE to include. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
OK. I may later add in something about her family being secular, as that was what I saw a lot in the reviews of Between Two Worlds: Escape From Tyranny: Growing Up in the Shadow Of Saddam CT55555(talk) 16:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

These sources may help develop article content:

Zainab Salbi: Why I cried for Uncle Saddam (Independent, 2012)
Zainab Salbi: Escape from tyranny (Guardian, 2013)
Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

These interviews (primary, non-independent sources) can help with article content, but like almost all of the other sources on the article, do nothing to help presume notability. The Independent one is already being used on the article.
Another issue I just noticed is many of the sources are currently violationg WP:BLPSPS: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.".
Those "staff" profiles on self-published websites like [8][9][10] not only don't add notability, but are WP:BLPSPS violations. While the policy is very clear-cut, including for these types of sources, I also double-checked with the -help IRC.
More blunt, given the overciting on this article with sources do not provide notability, "additional sources" should be secondary, reliable, independent of the subject. Adding more interviews, written statements by the subject, BLP violating sources do nothing for notability and further skew the BLP in a negative direction. In its current state, the article is for the most part "Zainab Salbi according to Zainab Salbi". We need to do better than that, and if we can't because the sourcing doesn't exist, then there's not much to say in terms of the subject's notability. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:Interview is an essay and not a guideline nor a policy. Thanks a lot @Beccaynr, the interviews will sure be of help in raising the notability. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@Paradise Chronicle It is an essay that provides more explanation on using interviews as sourcing. However, it is not controversial on Wikipedia that interviews in which a subject is talking about themselves are non-independent and primary. Do you have anything to back up your novel claim that they aren't? Also, I have to ask, but why are you still following me around on various places where I edit? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
From my view, I think it would be helpful if this section focuses on the sources listed at the beginning and whether and how to integrate information into the article - other Talk sections could be opened for issues related to other sources. As a starting point, WP:BASIC says Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject, and with the recent AfD closed as a snow keep, I think it would be helpful to move on from how these sources may or may not support notability. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

fyi, a source was removed from the article [11] (edit summary: "Failed verification. This source on ebscohost is a 3-question interview and doesn't mention her mother's job and doesn't mention her father.") but the content was based on the part of the source before the interview for the part of the sentence "her mother worked". This is not the only source I've found that mentions this, but it was the one I had quickly available when making the edit. This source was used with another source that describes the occupations of her mother and father. I have no objection to moving the reference to make the text-source integrity more clear, but I think it could be restored to help support the content. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The sentence in the Wiki article is "Her mother worked as a teacher and her father was a commercial pilot." One of the sources only said "her working mother" and nothing on her father. It did not describe the occupation of her mother, and didn't mention her father. Since we already have a source supporting the statement of her parents' occupations, why do we need to include an extra source saying nothing more than her mother worked? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
From my view, it is helpful to include because the other source only describes her as a teacher, and the fact that she worked appears to be emphasized by the source as pertinent to Salbi's biography. Beccaynr (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I think I see what you're getting at but the wording is confusing. Yes, it says she was a teacher. Teacher isn't a profession or isn't working? Or is the aim to make it crystal clear that as a teacher, this was a working job and not an ambiguous label? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
My recollection is that I found a source with a better level of detail, and I would prefer to use it if I can find it again. The source that was removed seems to highlight her mother working as an important part of Salbi's biography, so that aspect appears helpful, both to potentially include and as a reason to continue looking for more information about in other sources. The other source in the article seems more straightforward because it does not appear to offer the same kind of context. Beccaynr (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zainab Salbi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 15:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

 


#### References
#### Spotchecks
On this version
1 i have access to Gale via wikipedia library but I'm having issues finding this source. can you check you can access it? if yes fine, if not maybe use 3 instead
I also could not access. I've used source #3 and added a new source for her date of birth, it's not very reliable, it's a book publisher, but I assume non controversial. CT55555(talk) 17:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
cool - since the gale ref is secondary, I'd say just use that rather than adding the other one Mujinga (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I think I needed the book for the year though. CT55555(talk) 13:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh yeah that's true I was remembering another gale article which did give the DoB Mujinga (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
3 says "Her father was a commercial pilot, and her mother was a teacher" and we say "" "Her mother worked as a teacher and her father was a commercial pilot." - that's a bit close, can you rephrase?
Have rephrased. CT55555(talk) 17:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
4 ok but needs fleshing out, right now it just says "BETWEEN TWO WORLDS | Kirkus Reviews." - no author, date etc
Have cited better. CT55555(talk) 17:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
5 ok
9a ok
9b&18 "Salbi also visited and wrote a report about Iraq for Women Waging Peace in conjunction with the Woodrow Wilson Center on the role of women in the country post-conflict.[9][18]" - hmmm. so 9 says she visited Iraq, 18 says Salbi had a key role in the report which is being published "by Women Waging Peace in conjunction with the  Woodrow Wilson Center on the role of women in post-conflict Iraq" - so this needs rephrasing to avoid close paraphrasing AND to stick to what the source says
Yeah, you are being charitable to call that close-paraphrasing and not simply a copyright violation, I think. I've rewritten it and remove the SYNTH and possible over stating her role in the report. CT55555(talk) 17:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
10 ok
11 ok
15 AGF
16 "The organization was led by Salbi from 1993 to 2011, during which time its humanitarian and development efforts helped over 478,000 women in eight conflict areas and distributed over $120 million in direct aid and micro credit loans" - not seeing much of that in source? in fact it says "The group has now served 153,000 women in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo and Sudan. It has distributed more than $42 million in direct aid and loans"
I wasn't able to access. This article was PROMO before heavy editing and I assume updated but unverified data was used here. I've cut it back to the numbers and countries you quote. CT55555(talk) 17:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Shall I send you the Time article? Or maybe you can reach it with a VPN. "The organization was led by Salbi from 1993 to 2011" is not backed by the Time article Mujinga (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I'd be happy if you sent it. CT55555(talk) 13:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
sent! Mujinga (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Note to self TO DO CT55555(talk) 13:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I made edits (added back in "micro loans", cited list of countries). I think this is resolved, but let me know if I should do something lese. CT55555(talk) 14:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Cool, this bit still open -  "The organization was led by Salbi from 1993 to 2011" is not backed by the Time article Mujinga (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I added https://www.womenforwomen.org/about/our-team/zainab-salbi as a citation for the role dates. CT55555(talk) 13:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I found a source for the higher numbers of women helped and dollars spent and added the higher numbers back in. https://www.ft.com/content/4feead90-29c1-11e2-9a46-00144feabdc0 CT55555(talk) 17:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
That's paywalled for me, could you email it to me? Mujinga (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I was able to access it yesterday, and now it's paywalled. I guess they give us one free view. From memory, it gave detailed on spending, number of people helped and list of countries, it spoke about her apartment and it's location. CT55555(talk) 12:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
apologies if this is frowned upon, but i used 12ft.io to access the FT article - do you want me to send it? Mujinga (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't need it, unless you tell me I do for some reason. I am confident the data I recently added is properly sources, but if you have any doubts, then please tell me and feel free to send. CT55555(talk) 16:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
yeah i did find issues (see below), so i'll send it over in case it helps to have it Mujinga (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
20&21: In 2008, Women for Women International produced a report with an introduction by Salbi, based on 2004[20] and 2007 surveys of Iraqi women, including Kurdish, Shi'i, Sunni, Christian, Turkmen, and Sabai'i.[21] - so 21 is the report, would be better to have secondary source about it. re the claim "2007 surveys of Iraqi women, including Kurdish, Shi'i, Sunni, Christian, Turkmen, and Sabai'i" if this is referenced by the report I need a page number to check it. re 20, 2004 isn't mentioned in the cite?
I could not find an independent source. This doesn't seem like very important information. I suggest we just delete what is not covered in secondary sources. Seeking your thoughts? CT55555(talk) 17:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Update, see @Beccaynr's reply below. CT55555(talk) 18:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
It is difficult to address this without reconstructing my research, but I would plan on making this a priority to restore, based on my recollection of available sources, after this GA process concludes. Beccaynr (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@Beccaynr: @CT55555:well the article is currently quite thin so it's probably better to pause the review and wait for more information to be added, so the coverage can be broadened to satisfy criterion3. i can pause it for two weeks how does that sound? Mujinga (talk) 08:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I am sorry to not be more familiar with the GA process, and I regret not contacting CT55555 after the GA nomination was made while the ANI complaint was pending to mention how I had hoped to have a chance to thoroughly review the article and to incorporate research conducted during the AfD that had closed a few days before, but had not yet had the opportunity. I sometimes do major revisions on articles, but these take a fair amount of time because of the research process - I read everything to get a sense of what is available, and have that process help determine how to construct and balance the article.
For this subject, my recollection is that between the WP Library and what is available online, there is a fair amount to work with to help develop a cohesive narrative about her life and career. I would also want to review content that has been removed, because from my view, e.g. this [12] is not necessarily 'weird promo,' but perhaps more of an indication of an article development process that had abruptly stopped. Unfortunately, I currently have a lot going on both on- and off-wiki, so I cannot promise when I may be able to refocus on this article. Maybe other editors can review and incorporate available sources in the meantime. In any event, I am sorry I did not speak up sooner about my perspective on available sources and the apparent need to review and revise the article, but if something like this ever happens again, I will be sure to be more proactive. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
In case it's helpful:
The GA nomination shouldn't prevent any article improvements, it's perfectly OK to keep improving after a nomination.
The "weird (promo?) edit removed some words, but added the main point elsewhere, so no content is lost, I think.
I agree there is no rush, so if @Mujinga is happy to pause and you want time to improve, I like that idea.
I'm happy to collaborate in any way that others find helpful. Peace. CT55555(talk) 15:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I think at this point it is best for me to take this article off my watchlist and to encourage other editors to review available sources and revise accordingly. I wish you all the best with this process and I am sorry that I do not know when I may be available to focus on this article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
OK thanks both, let's carry on with the review then Mujinga (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
23 "She was also identified as one of the 100 most influential women in the world in Time Magazine and in The Guardian. Salbi announced her resignation from Women for Women International in 2011.[23]" - Time not mentioned in source, Guardian not mentioned, resignation not mentioned
Part 1 - My searches found that Guardian did identify her with something like this, have added it in. I don't think Time did (but I did find that she contributed to a Time Top 100 in 2009, so that is probably a misunderstanding or puffery - have removed Time reference). CT55555(talk) 17:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that Foreign Policy gave her a Top 100 thing. Sadly could only source that to Hilton Foundation (which I consider reliable but not top tier) rather than Foreign Policy or secondary source. I added it in. CT55555(talk) 17:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I found her employment end date. I added it. It doesn't say resigned, so I just said her employment ended. CT55555(talk) 17:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
27&28 "Salbi then launched The Zainab Salbi Project, an original series with Huffington Post (2016); #MeToo, Now What? with PBS (2018);[27] and Through Her Eyes with Zainab Salbi, with Yahoo! News (2019).[28]" - so 27 backs #MeToo, Now What?. 28 says "Salbi also launched The Zainab Salbi Project with Huffington Post, #MeToo, Now What? with PBS, and Through Her Eyes with Zainab Salbi with Yahoo! News." - so years aren't sourced
I have added sources for the TV shows. They are not great sources, but they do back up what was there, so not controversial, I hope you will support. CT55555(talk) 17:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


#### Pix
All three pix are relevant and appropriately licensed
All three could use alts, although this isn't a pass/fail issue
I think the captions for the those pix in-body are a bit too detailed, but happy to discuss.
I've added alt text for all three and edited captions for brevity and consistency. CT55555(talk) 16:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


#### Other criteria
Article is stable


#### Prose
lead needs work per MOS:LEAD - prob best to do this last
"The Iran-Iraq War also occurred during her childhood" - don't need also
"also" removed CT55555(talk) 16:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Awards and honors is referenced, but needs trimming since this is an encyclopedia entry not a CV. i'd suggest at least trimming away the awards without secondary sources and maybe makijng it into prose instead of a list. Also, there's crossover here between this section, "Salbi was identified as an influential Arab woman by Arabian Business,[29] one of the 100 Global Thinkers in the World by Foreign Policy,[30] one of the Most Influential Women on Twitter, by Fortune (2014),[31] and one of the 100 Most Powerful Arabs by Gulf Business (2019).[32]" abd She was selected as a jury member of The Hilton Humanitarian Prize.[23] Salbi sits on the board of directors of Synergos[24] and the International Refugee Assistance Project.[25]. So these could be put together into one awards and recognition section.
I've cut it down, but left in the primary stuff that seemed more of a big deal (honoury degrees, awards that seemed more of a big deal). I made it into prose, removed duplicated and merged that section into the career section. CT55555(talk) 18:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
nice one good work! Mujinga (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
"She was selected as a jury member of The Hilton Humanitarian Prize.[23] Salbi sits on the board of directors of Synergos[24] and the International Refugee Assistance Project.[25]" - this seems likem puff and it's all primary sources so I'd suggest deleting
May I push back? I think someone's governance roles is relevant biographical information. It is indeed primary sources, but is verified. I don't care deeply so will delete if you don't find this agreeable, but I don't think it's puffy or PROMO to say what board roles someone has, if it is written neutrally and verified. CT55555(talk) 18:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
i also don't mind it to be there but the article now needs broadening out to contextualise the awards and appointments. if it's notable that she is on the board of synergos for example I would imagine there'd be a mention of it somewhere else. Mujinga (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Note To Self TO DO CT55555(talk) 13:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Update: I could find nothing about the board roles, so I've taken them out. For most of the awards, I was able to add why she got the awards. So I think I've done what I can. It's not a perfect fix, secondary information was sparse. My self assessment is that I've done the best I can here, and the outcome is acceptable, if not excellent. Awaiting feedback. CT55555(talk) 14:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Despite how the Guardian does it, "called Nida'a (the calling in Arabic[8])" it should be The Calling and also it would be good to use another word for "called"
Have edited that down and made simpler, corrected link CT55555(talk) 18:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
"Salbi then launched The Zainab Salbi Project, an original series with Huffington Post (2016); #MeToo, Now What? with PBS (2018);[27] and Through Her Eyes with Zainab Salbi, with Yahoo! News (2019).[28]" - could you add some details on what all these shows are? based on secondary sources ideally
I added that they were television shows. Not sure if I should add more, about content etc? I could easily do that for some of them I think. CT55555(talk) 18:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
yes please do that'd be great! Mujinga (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Note to self TO DO CT55555(talk) 13:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I have expanded the section on her television work, adding descriptive text about the shows and their content. I'm pleased with this change, it makes the article better. Thanks for the nudge. CT55555(talk) 13:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
we say she is a writer but then don't really say anything about her books. so perhaps some stuff from the reviews can be used to say what books she wrote and what they are about
Ha good point! Have added a paragraph. CT55555(talk) 18:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
external links - I don't see the need for her twitter to be listed, she's not a twitter celebrity
Twitter link removed CT55555(talk) 16:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Update: I see she got an award for her Twitter work, so I thin she is a Twitter celebrity. I expanded commentary on the award (slightly) and added that back in. This isn't a hill I want to die on, so will revert, but hope you consider this persuasive. CT55555(talk) 14:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
ok yes i'm with you Mujinga (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


#### Overview
I'll take this on for review Mujinga (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! A quick ping to @Beccaynr, @DaffodilOcean, @SouthernNights, @Paradise Chronicle who all collaborated on this article last year when it was at AFD. I nominated this for GA status so expect to do all the heavily lifting for issues identified. CT55555(talk) 15:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
One quick comment, while people advocating to delete the article argued that Yemen Times was unreliable, I think credible arguments were presented that it was reliable. @Beccaynr described it as an award wining newspaper and I argued it should be reliable for the content it cited, which did not seem refuted (see talk page). I realise now that I should have removed the comment in the article, and now I don't want to edit it while you are reviewing. CT55555(talk) 15:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello hello welcome all. Yes I've been reading through the AfD and related discussions, and actually just removed the unreliable source tag on Yemen Times since the discussion did not determine that it was. You can edit stuff if you want CT55555, although it's prob easier to let me make comments then I can let you know when I'm done. Do you like pings or you are happy just to keep this watchlisted? I'm the latter but happy to ping you. Comments forthcoming, cheers, Mujinga (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
This is on my watchlist, so no pings needed, but pings also welcome if you think I've missed something. I tend to be responsive and agreeable. I'm a few months better at editing than when I last looked at this, so agree on captions and alt text, I'll take action once I sense that it won't risk edit conflicts. CT55555(talk) 16:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Cool I'll give you a shout when I'm done! Mujinga (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@CT55555: Hiya, I'm stopping here to discuss. As you'll see I'm hitting problems with the spotchecks; these aren't insurmountable but will require some work to sort out. In addition the article needs some rewriting to make it less of a CV and more of an encyclopedic entry. What do you think about that? Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Everything you said seems agreeable. I was considering pushing back on the primary sourced board roles, because I think its verified useful information, but I don't care deeply, so wonder what you think about that. I'm going to work though these fixable and clearly articulated recommendations now. Thanks! CT55555(talk) 17:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Cool if you are prepared to put the work in, let's carry on and just tell me when you are done. Mujinga (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I've addressed everything and made mild edits to the lead. CT55555(talk) 19:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
OK, I've now responded to the second batch of feedback. I think I was able to fix everything. Notable possible flaws are: I put the Twitter link back in, and justified why. I hope you'll support but I don't care deeply. The background on the awards isn't fantastic, but I think it's good enough, I'll await your assessment on that. I think everything else is satisfactorily addressed. Thanks for the volume of work you've put into this review so far and for the clearly communicated ways to improve the article. CT55555(talk) 14:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mujinga ping CT55555(talk) 14:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
My recollection is I had started working on this article and had planned to continue substantial work after the AfD. After I saw the GA nom, I decided to wait on reviewing sources and the article until after the GA process is completed. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Re: 20&21 at pp. 15-16 in the pdf available for download at Stronger Women, Stronger Nations: 2008 Iraq Report, the 2004 and 2007 surveys are discussed, with both dates specifically mentioned at p. 15; at p. 16, 2007 study participants are described. Beccaynr (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I've addressed most of the point, but not the MOS:LEAD thing. I could ping the reviewer now, but did you want to do anything before I do that? CT55555(talk) 18:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
My recollection is I had conducted research and had ideas about expanding this article, and there was also an ANI complaint related to this article that had needed to be addressed. I was not consulted in advance about submitting the article for GA review, so I just stopped my work while my research and ideas were fresh so the article would be 'stable'. If I have the time, energy, and focus available after the GA process concludes, I may conduct research again, review sources and the article, and attempt to make revisions and additions I recall hoping to make.
I expect that my work would take at least several days, so it does not appear feasible within the timeframe of the current review, and I am not sure when I might be able to reconstruct the research and review the article and sources. In the meantime, I have other projects that I have voluntarily undertaken and have been hoping to focus on due to various time constraints. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
re " I think I already missed up the numbering due to removing some that GA review asked me to remove" don't worry about that, we just to be on the same page about what version we are discussing, cheers Mujinga (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


#### Round2
I am not sure if this is the correct place, but I believe some more sections such as early life and education and professional life/ life in USA, life in Iraq could be helpful. Just a suggestion, I am not as much into it as CT55555 and do not know if there is enough material for such sectionsParadise Chronicle (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I had the same feeling, but it gets complicated because her education happens quite late and so the normal ways to break things up doesn't work well for her due to overlapping education, migration, events. I considered "life in Iraq" and "life in US" approaches, but none worked.
Basically I agree philosophically, but have not found a way that works pragmatically. CT55555(talk) 15:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes I also agree and would suggest putting from "In 1995, President Bill Clinton honoured Salbi ..." until "... Security Award by the University of California, Irvine's Blum Centre for Poverty Alleviation" into an "Awards and rcognition" section, then tidying up around what's left. What do you (both) think? Mujinga (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I find that agreeable and have done that now. CT55555(talk) 13:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


##### More comments
Nice one CT55555 i read the article again and I think it's much improved. Some more comments:
Lead needs expanding to summarise the article per MOS:LEAD, prob easiest to do last.
Agree. Will do last. To Do.CT55555(talk) 13:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Already looking better! The divorce claim isn't cited in the body (just says "She left the marriage after her husband..") and the infobox currently reads "Amjad Atallah (1993) divorced (2007)" so that's a bit garbled. Or does it mean she divorced Atallah in 2007? Mujinga (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
"Salbi is the author of" could be "Salbi is the author of books including" since she has 5 in total Mujinga (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The first two miniparagraphs could be joined into one Mujinga (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
First two (lead) paragraphs now joined. CT55555(talk) 16:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Mentioned above but putting here for clarity, "The organization was led by Salbi from 1993 to 2011" is not backed by the Time article
Fixed. Note source says "last year" in case you search for "2011".CT55555(talk) 13:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
re guardian top 100 please specify top 100 what
Have expended and better cited that sentence CT55555(talk) 13:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
"Time magazine named her Innovator of the Month in March 2005[25] and she was profiled in Time for her pioneering work as philanthropist" - suggest "she was later profiled for her"
Agree done. CT55555(talk) 13:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
"a former Alamo Drafthouse Cinema's blog editor who was accused of sexual assault as his accuser" - delete "as his accuser"? not sure to whom it refers
Ooops. Fixed/deleted CT55555(talk) 13:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
in terms of article structure, the miniparagraphs starting "Salbi completed her bachelor's degree" and "After visiting Iraq, Salbi contributed" could be joined to the end of the previous paragraph
Some sentences have moved since then, but I agree and have joined a few short paragraphs CT55555(talk) 13:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
well in fact "After visiting Iraq, Salbi contributed to a report on the role of women in post-war Iraq published by both Women Waging Peace and the Woodrow Wilson Center.[9][20] She later testified before the United States Congress about the report.[20]" as it stands is not very well referenced still, as mentioned first time round
I wrote the report thing better and added a citation which is the report itself. Not certain about that. I also cited what I think is a primary source for the congress thing, but at least it is clear. Also not sure of myself on that one, so await your comment. CT55555(talk) 13:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
so it's now "After visiting Iraq, she contributed the 2003 report Winning the Peace Conference Report: Women’s Role in Post-Conflict Iraq[22] published by Women Waging Peace and the Woodrow Wilson Center."[10][23] - where is "After visiting Iraq" cited? the report is cited to itself, which could be better but is ok. 23 supports WWP and WWC. what's 10 doing? Mujinga (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I deleted the "After visiting Iraq" it was a legacy thing that I think is not supported. In the context of her being Iraqi and living there fore 20 years I don't think the reader benefits much from reassurance that she visited Iraq.
Citation 10 was what was used to ascertain her religion. I don't know how it ended up in there, but have moved it down to personal life section and mentioned her religion. CT55555(talk) 16:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
ref38 is a bit garbled " "Degree honours BBC Scotland chief Donalda". Evening News; Edinburgh (UK) [Edinburgh (UK)]. July 4, 2019. p. 8 – via ProQuest." - don't need Edinburgh UK twice Mujinga (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I've fixed that citation and linked it. CT55555(talk) 13:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mujinga batch two of feedback is done. CT55555(talk) 13:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
(Except lead, I might start that now, or wait until the end)... CT55555(talk) 13:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


##### Spotchecks2
on this version

1 FT text requested
You still need it? CT55555(talk) 17:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
1a ok
1b source says "“Since I was 15 years old I have dedicated my life to serving women,” she says, crediting her mother, a biology teacher, for inspiring her" so "At the time of her birth" not covered
A fair point. Have corrected. Now just "Her mother was a biology teacher" CT55555(talk) 16:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
1c ok
1d ok
1e "As of 2021" nope 2012!! so maybe not worth mentioned because it's so long ago
Sorry for my 21<>21 typo. I changed it to "In 2012" but not sure if I should delete it? 16:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
yeah i think better to delete because 2012 is 11 years ago Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Done. Now personal life section is 3 words. May incorporate religion elsewhere or just drop it. Any thoughts? CT55555(talk) 17:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Haha yes better to put that info in early life. Not a fan of three word sections. Mujinga (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
3 we say "In 2012 Salbi and Doreen Lawrence were identified as the Barclays' Women of the Year." - source says "Last week, she was awarded Barclays Women of the Year award by Dame Helen Mirren, alongside Doreen Lawrence, mother of murdered schoolboy Stephen, the writer P D James and more than 30 British Olympic and Paralympic medallists." - not quite the same because I was expecting the source to confirm it was just her and Lawrence, rather than her and over 30 other women
Yes, you are correct. That sentence was correct, but misleading. I've changed it to "In 2012, she was one of Barclays' Women of the Year." I could have said "one of over 30" and then it starts to suggest it's not such a big deal and maybe I should not even mentioned it. All feedback on that welcome. CT55555(talk) 16:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
yeah great - we have quality secondary sources such as Independent and FT referring to it so I think it is worth including Mujinga (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
7  Broadview Magazine - ok
OK, now responded to everything. I think the only unresolved thing is if you need me to do something about citation 1 FT. Comments say you want text, but I think you have text, so I'm not sure if you need anything from me? ping Mujinga CT55555(talk) 17:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
FT is resolved, but I have more comments after doing a final read-through, I;ll put them below and regard everything above as dealt with OR mentioned again below Mujinga (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


#### Round3
We need another round since the article has changed a lot. It's mainly nitpicks now :)
:-) CT55555(talk) 11:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
muslim - Muslim? In our article on Muslims capital M is used and that seems normal to me
Good catch. Fixed CT55555(talk) 11:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
"author of books including" - I'd prefer this in the lead becuase she published more than two books
Done CT55555(talk) 11:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
link Hussein on first mention in body
Done CT55555(talk) 11:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
link Baghdad on first mention in body
Done CT55555(talk) 11:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
"In 2008, it produced a report with an introduction by Salbi, based on 2004[26] and 2007 surveys of Kurdish, Shi'i, Sunni, Christian, Turkmen, and Sabai'i Iraqi women.[27]" - it's back again!? still can't verify the stated information from the links. 26 doesn't mention a 2004 report and 27 doesn't mention Turkmen, Sunni etc
I rewrote that part based on the source. Now it reads "In January 2005, it produced a report presenting findings from a survey of 1,000 Iraqi women. The report conveyed women's concerns about their safety in war" which is all from the only secondary source that was there. CT55555(talk) 11:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
"The five part series explored how positive change could occur after the aftermath of the MeToo movement. The show examined issues of gender, race, and social class.[30] On the show, Salbi interviewed political commentator Angela Rye, writer Ijeoma Oluo" - this reads a bit proseline right now with "... the series ... the show ... the show", can you reformulate
Agreed. Fixed now. CT55555(talk) 11:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
"she she was later profiled for her work" - 2xshe
Fixed. CT55555(talk) 11:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
She received the Eleanor Roosevelt Val-Kill Award in 2019.[54] The award was given for her writing and television work to advance awareness of issues affecting women - one sentence would read smoother
Agreed. Done. CT55555(talk) 11:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Nearly there hopefully! Mujinga (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Round three, back at you Mujinga CT55555(talk) 11:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Reading through again, I notice you have "focus-" and "focuss-" so it would be good to standardise that
Done. Went with US version. CT55555(talk) 16:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Otherwise it's all good now, so congrats on the GA and thanks for working through all the queries so promptly @CT55555: Mujinga (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks for the collaborative spirit, diligence, and patience! CT55555(talk) 16:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Cheers and happy editing! Mujinga (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Beccaynr: I think this edit is unjustified and frankly uncollaborative. You said above you didn't have time to participate in the GA process, you would take this page off your watchlsit and you wouldn't have time for it. That's all fine but then the day after the GA review you drastically reduce the lead. If you read the review, I was asking for the lead to be expanded per MOS:LEAD. I don't understand either your motivation or your justification for making these changes. I would not have passed the article as a GA with the lead like that. Your motivation doesn't matter to me but I would like to discuss the justification. I'm sure @CT55555: would too after all the hard work they put in bringing this to GA standard.
re Daily Beast, I have much less concerns about that removal, although I do note WP:DAILYBEAST says "Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons" and I'm not sure what was controversial. What does worry me is that by simply removing it, have you left any text/source integrity issues behind? Mujinga (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

How do you not understand the motivation? a clear rationale was given in the edit summary. —Alalch E. 10:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
That's also unhelpful "MOS:LEAD edits/undue per article, and WP:WAW/WP:NOTBYRELATION, rm repeated content; rm WP:DAILYBEAST" is not clear at all and in fact combines completely different things into one edit. Did you read what I said? I asked in the GA review above for the lead to be expanded per MOS:LEAD Mujinga (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think its unhelpful. WP:WAW is a link to an essay: Wikipedia:Writing about women. WP:NOTBYRELATION is a link to a section of the same essay. In the relevant part, the essay says not to frame the narrative in a sexist way such as by defining women by their relationships. According to Beccaynr, the lead had, and now has, the wrong approach to writing about this women because it significantly defines her through her relationships: to her father, to Saddam, to her first husband, and to Atallah, her second husband. It's clear what removing the Daily Beast reference is about; yes that's a wholly separate change with an independent rationale (many editors remove references to this source whenever possible). The "rm repeated content" is about copyediting the lead content that remains after removing the information that Beccaynr considered to be undue (two mentions of how she co-founded Women for Women International). This is just my explaining what the edit summary means.—Alalch E. 11:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The lead, as well as the article, can (should) be expanded by saying what her other books are about.—Alalch E. 11:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Verification that mother was Shia was lost with the removal of the Daily Beast reference.—Alalch E. 12:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Mujinga, I was alerted to the completion of the GA process by a ping from CT55555 [13] in a comment suggesting that I receive credit for it, so I looked at the article, but I realize my comments during the GA process and my recent comment on your Talk page [14] might make my post-GA edit appear uncollaborative, and I am sorry for creating that impression when my intent was to improve the article.
From my view, the lead appeared to disproportionately focus on personal aspects of her biography compared to what she is notable for, according to the proportion of content and references in the article that focus on her accomplishments, and in a way described in the WP:NOTBYRELATION section of the WP:WAW essay - Alalch E. has described the issue above. And it would have been better for me to split the removal of The Daily Beast into a separate edit, but I do generally try to remove this source, especially for statements about living people.
As to TSI issues, on closer review, this appears to be the source for the 1996 US citizenship date, for which I do not think it should be relied upon, and I apologize for not noticing this when I removed the source but not the content it appears to support. And I think generally, per MOS:LEAD, it might work to incorporate some content from the Awards section. Overall, I would like to reiterate the apology that I tried to express during the GA process about my lack of familiarity with the process. It appears I still have more to learn, and I appreciate you following up on my edit. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm mostly watching and listening because:
I respect the philosophy of WP:WAW/WP:NOTBYRELATION and want to learn from this. Until now, I didn't think of them much.
I see some tension because I also note that reliable sources frame her by her relations. I don't know if that means they are perpetuating a wrong that we should end, or if we should follow them.
I wish @Beccaynr's contributions were timed earlier. But I also see the good faith and maybe some confusion, maybe @Beccaynr thinks they could not edit during a GA process or pre-GA review?
My approach to GA review process is to assume the reviewer knows best and defer to their requests, so am now a but unsure what to do, I don't have strong views on anything here, am more in learning/listening mode and hope we can reach consensus. If someone could say what TSI is an acronym for, that would help me. CT55555(talk) 20:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
TSI is 'text-source integrity,' as in, I should have been much more careful when removing The Daily Beast to be sure I was not leaving unsourced content in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)