Talk:Hezbollah/Archive GA

message: This article is well-researched and informative, however, I think it does not yet meet criteron 5 at WP:WIAGA. A glance at the edit history reveals numerous content disputes, with over 50 edits in the past 24 hours. I think that the POV tag at the top of the article supports this assessment.
Despite what appears to be a substantial amount of disagreement, I think the editors involved have put together an exceptional article. I learned a lot about Hezbollah from this entry, and I look forward to supporting a GA nomination once disputes are resolved. —ptk✰fgs 13:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you completely.--Sa.vakilian 13:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: I want to nominate this article as a good article. Please write your ideas here on the basis of Wikipedia:What is a good article?--Sa.vakilian 17:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong Oppose - I respectfully oppose. This Article fails to meet the requirements of criterion No. 4 NPOV which is a pre-requisite for a Good Article Nomination.  This Article is dominated by ONE POV. Lcnj 03:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Weak Support - The article is sufficiently NPOV (as evidenced by the fact that there is no NPOV tag anywhere in the article), but it still could be "pruned." The article is currently 98 kB.  Wikipedia:What is a good article? says it should be closer to 25 kB.  On the other hand, I wouldn't go so far as to say that 74% of the article needs to be deleted before it is a "good article." I've already begun pruning the article so that it is more to the point, but without compromising the content.  --GHcool 05:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination as a good article

message: I think this article will reach good article criteria as soon as we verify Hezbollah#Outside views of Hezbollah. Do you agree with me?Sa.vakilian(t-c)--17:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally verification of the facts and refreshing the sources ended. Now we can nominate it as Good article after a long and hard attempt to reach Good article criteria. 
*1- It is well written.
*2- It is factually accurate and verifiable. 
*3- It is broad in its coverage.
*4- It follows the neutral point of view policy. 
*5- It is stable.
*6- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me.  ;) --GHcool 20:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this is a good article yet, as I haven't had the time to review it in depth, but I know it's made leaps and strides of quality thanks to Sa.vakilian and other editors. I think it's a good idea to nominate the article. At the very least we can get some feedback on points to look at further. — George Saliba [talk] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agree. There has been massive improvements since its last GA run, especially in regards to the stable part... mceder (u t c) 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated it there.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ambiguous phrase in background section: "Even before this summer’s war". Summer of which year? NH summer or SH summer? -- Jesselong 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What the?! Son of a! Oh well, back to work.  All kidding aside, I agree with the above suggestions and thank BongHitzMusa for his/her attention.  --GHcool 05:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We haven't found such pictures which can be used in wikipedia and it's not necessary to do so.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks GHcool for your attempts. I added some more information and references and I believe "History" becomes GA as well as other parts.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for relisting it, Orderinchaos.  I actually think the history section is better now anyway.  --GHcool 18:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article candidacy

message: This fails on the 'broad coverage' issue. It requires more than a link to the 'History of Hezbollah' article. Summarise the history article (content forking) with an even spread addressing he period 1982-present. Commendable coverage of the media operations and social services arms of the organisations. Good to see 'funding sources'included. General preparation and referencing of this article otherwise tremendous. For images I'd request a picture showing a Hezbollah member 'in action' (military, social welfare, TV/communications, parliamentary or other ..  apart from the talking head of Nasrullah. BongHitz4Musa 04:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the?! Son of a! Oh well, back to work.  All kidding aside, I agree with the above suggestions and thank BongHitzMusa for his/her attention.  --GHcool 05:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We haven't found such pictures which can be used in wikipedia and it's not necessary to do so.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks GHcool for your attempts. I added some more information and references and I believe "History" becomes GA as well as other parts.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review - fail

message: The GA reviewer above was the sock of a blocked user DavidYork71. While their views may well be worth taking into account for improvement of the article, they have a history of disruption of articles related to Islam. As such, I have relisted the article without prejudice on GAC. Orderinchaos 08:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for relisting it, Orderinchaos.  I actually think the history section is better now anyway.  --GHcool 18:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relisted

message: I have reviewed the article and think that it meets GA standards on all but a few things. I have therefore placed the article on hold and will explain things that I think need addressing to reach GA. On the whole though let me say that given the nature of the topic this was overall a neutral and well balanced article. Previous concerns as well have been addressed and article is stable.
* The references in the article were on a whole excellent and theres no shortage. However the following needs a reference as it is a siginificant claim, or possibly more than one:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 called for the disarmament of militia with the Taif agreement at the end of the Lebanese civil war. Hezbollah denounced and protested against the resolution. The 2006 military conflict with Israel has increased the controversy. Failure to disarm remains a violation of the resolution and agreement, but a significant minority of Lebanese consider Hezbollah's weaponry a necessary and justified element of resistance.
and earlier in the article:
Ending Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon was the primary focus of Hezbollah's early activities - please reference
* Status of the image Katyushalebanon.jpg? Fair use? Criteria states Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Fair use images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly. This image is nominated for deletion and fair use is not explained. Suggest removal from article. Other images are fine.
* Please rewrite the following statement, adding a reference and whats with the 10s of, tens...
Hezbollah's financial support is a matter of controversy. Critics argue it is, or has been, massively supported with 10s of millions of dollars annually from the Islamic Republic of Iran
* Other things that I would recommend is expand the following statement, though not for GA but just to improve, i.e. give a few examples:
Its Reconstruction Campaign ('Jihad Al Binna') is responsible for numerous economic and infrastructure development projects in Lebanon. 
Thanks LordHarris 18:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great comments.  I'll get started as soon as I can.  --GHcool 20:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these problems has solved.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: GA approved. Good work on responding so fast! I'm afraid I cant really suggest things to improve, as the references and the breadth of the article are fine. If you consider to nominate for an FAC, I suggest asking for a peer review beforehand. This will be a good way to identify things to improve on. Anyway good work! LordHarris 12:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold