Talk:Kahina Bahloul

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 04:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 12:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating this for Women in Green's 6th edit-a-thon! I'm happy to take this on for review, as I'd like to learn more about liberal/secular Islam in France and Bahloul's place in it. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Childhood in Algeria

• No mention of birth date?
  • Not sure where this came from, sources only support the year and I added that to the body.
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• Why does it say "Kabyle Algerian"? Aren't Kabyle people indigenous to Algeria?
  • I feel that the clarifying detail is helpful. I wouldn't consider this common knowledge to English speakers.
• Spotcheck: [2][3] Verified.
• Why does it say "Sufi Muslim" rather than simply "Sufi"? I think Sufism already implies Islam no?
  • Same as above, I think the clearer description is helpful.
• Might be worth linking to Irreligion in France for "atheist".
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [6] Verified.
• Consider linking to Arabic, French and Berber languages
  • Done.
• Which Berber language did she speak? I'd assume it was the Kabyle language, but the source doesn't say.
  • None of the sources specified.
• Consider using "Tamazight" instead of "Berber", as the latter has colonial connotations.
  • Berber is used pretty universally on Wikipedia.
• "he her" Is there a missing word here?
  • Fixed.
• Spotcheck: [5] Verified the sentence about her father's understanding of Islam. But "She never left Islam, but she distanced herself from the religion as a teenager because she felt unwelcome as a woman" seems like it may not be entirely accurate to the source. If the section of the source I'm looking at is the correct one, it says: "Not feeling in tune with what is practised in today's mosques, especially those that claim to be Salafist, the young woman decided to open her own place of worship." That is quite different than her feeling unwelcome due to her gender, it seems to imply a theological disagreement with Salafism.
  • It's referring to a lower paragraph about when she was a teenager.
• "She took interest in the law's adherence to Sharia," Might be worth clarifying that this is Algerian law, as I was a bit confused for a moment.
  • Done.
• "but also that in her view" This is a bit of an odd way to tie these to things together in one sentence. I'd recommend just starting a new sentence with "In her view,".
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: [6] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.

Life in France

• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
• Consider linking to democracy and gender equality.
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• "state of Islam" Maybe "situation" instead of "state"? "state of Islam" may have other connotations.
  • Hadn't even considered that. I switched it with "global perception" which is closer to what it's supposed to mean anyway.
• Spotcheck: [6] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
• Is there a chance that Khaled Roumo may have his own article at some point? If so, would it be worth redlinking him?
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [10] Verified.
• "return to school" At least to me, "school" implies lower-level education. Perhaps something else would be better here? Like "return to her studies"?
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
• Might be worth including her thoughts on the "crisis of meaning within Islam", I found that part of the source quite interesting.
  • "emanates from medieval thought" is quoted later in the article.
• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [10] Verified.

Imamate and Fatima Mosque

• Is there any source on the inspiration for the name of the Fatima Mosque? Does it have anything to do with the Prophet's daughter Fatima?
  • I'd say probably, but I don't remember seeing that in the sources.
• Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
• Is there a chance that Faker Korchane might have an article at some point? Would it be worth redlinking?
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
• Consider linking to Khutbah for sermon.
  • Done.
• "Alawya order" Is this referring to the Alawites?
  • That sounds plausible, but I wouldn't be confident adding it.
• As above, would it be worth redlinking Annika Skattum?
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
• Consider linking to Conservatism#Religious conservatism for "conservative Muslims".
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: [1][5] Verified, although Le Point does actually say that it was the "most conservative fringe of the Muslim community", so it may be worth being more specific just so we're not implying it applies to conservative Muslims as a whole.
  • Reworded to "the most conservative adherents of Islam", but I'd be open to a better wording.
• What happened to the Fatima Mosque after lockdown and pandemic restrictions were lifted? This says it became less active online, did that coincide with a return to public activity?
  • There's been disappointingly little coverage after that burst when she was founding the mosque in 2019–2020. I added that "it came to focus on a smaller group of members", though I don't love this wording either.

Religious and political views

• Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [6] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [5][13] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
• Might be worth saying that she supports individual readings and interpretation of the Quran.
  • Done.
• Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [13] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [5][13] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [6] Verified.
• "rebuilding a complementary feminism" What does this mean exactly?
  • I honestly don't know, that's just what she said is the main idea of her activity.
• Spotcheck: [3][7] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [10] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [14] Verified.

Lead and infobox

• Date formatting should be standardised. I'd recommend DMY per MOS:DATETIES.
  • Problem solved by not actually knowing her birthday.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   There's a few cases where the prose isn't as clear as it could be, and one obvious grammatical error.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Follows the manual of style to the letter.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References are all impeccably formatted and presented.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   All reliable sources are cited inline with the information they're verifying.

   C. It contains no original research:

   There's a couple cases where the text appears to break with or twist what the source is saying.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No clear cases of copyright violations or close paraphrasing, even when translating from French sources. No issues flagged by Earwig either.[1]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   If there's any recent updates on the situation with the Fatima Mosque, they should be provided. Otherwise, everything I'd expect to be in here is.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Very focused, without any undeserved deviations from the topic.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Very neutral, even when discussing contentious subjects.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No changes since its GA nominations, only major edits have been carried out by the nominator. Only reversion in its history was a procedural reversion of a category change.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   Leading image is an original photo by DeuxPlusQuatre, released under a Creative Commons license. Second image is from an Oumma video interview, which was published under a Creative Commons license.

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

   Both images are of the article's subject. They're suitably captioned, but could perhaps do with a little more information and would benefit from alt text.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Fantastic work on this article TBUA! I learnt a lot reading this and found it a very interesting process. The only issues I have found that would prevent it from passing are a couple prose issues with clarity and a grammatical error, a couple cases where the text may not fit with what the source says, and a possible gap where more up-to-date information could be useful. Once these have been seen to, I'll be happy to give it another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Grnrchst, I've replied to each point above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for seeing to everything! More than happy to pass this now. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2024 (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.