Wikipedia:Peer review/Women's rights in Saudi Arabia/archive2

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review to get ideas for improvement, with an eye toward Good Article status.

Thanks, Noloop (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H1nkles

This is a fascinating subject and I'll happily review it. It is a rather long article so I will need to review it in chunks. Since your aim currently is to get the article to GA status I will review it in light of the GA Criteria.

Lead

Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a summary of all the points in the article, it is a skeletal version of the article. The body of the article then fills in the details. Given the length of this article a three to four paragraph lead is warranted. Please expand the lead and incorporate all the subjects in the article.
Assuming all the information in the lead is found in the body of the article, it is not necessary to source in the lead. Sourcing is not discouraged per se but it's something to think about.

Background

See WP:QUOTE. One of the GA Criteria is to adhere to Manual of Style guidelines. Be sure the two quotes at the top of this section are consistent with the MOS. One concern is that grammatical and spelling mistakes within the quote be identified usually by a (sic). I would check with WP:QUOTE to be sure on that. Also check formatting, use of quotation marks, and attribution.
No need for bold text at the beginning of the first sentence in the body of the article.
I like the use of parentheses after the first use of each Islamic term, please be sure to do this with each new term (ex. fatwa - Religious edict I think).
“It’s the culture, not the religion,” is a Saudi saying. This is an unattributed quote. It is also apparently a common saying in Saudi culture and probably doesn't have a specific source. To me it's no big deal but to some, including possibly the GA reviewer, it may come across as original research. I'm a firm believer in judicious sourcing, not every concept and idea needs a source but some do not share my pragmatism.
Keeping the above point in mind this statement will be hard to quantify: "Few Saudis see Islam as the main impediment to women’s rights." How do you know this? Is there a study or a poll confirming this fact? Personal opinions on cultural perspectives should be left out of encyclopedia articles.
Watch over linking. See WP:LINK. Once a term is linked once in the body of the article it isn't usually necessary to link it again. Sometimes if the link occurs early in a long article it's ok to link it a second time later on but not one right after the other as in the references is Aisha. I edited out a couple of the links but this should be checked throughout. Also country names do not need to be linked.
Be sure to put all references outside of the punctuation. I saw one instance of the reference being on the inside of the punctuation towards the end of this section.
More undefined terms: non-mahram, abaya, niqab. I see that these terms are defined in detail later in the article but a word or two in their first reference is probably useful.
A Gallup poll is referenced in the final paragraph in this section. Is that poll found in the Time or the Washington Post articles that are used as sources in that paragraph?
Use of British English vs. American English spelling needs to be consistent. For the most part thus far the article is in American English, but in the Namus section there is an instance when honor is spelled "honour", even though it is also spelled "honor" in the same section. Check throughout the article for consistency.

Purdah

I'm not sure of the MOS edicts on templates like the "Islamic female dress" banner under the Dress code sub-section. This may need to be moved down to the bottom of the article where these templates usually reside.
One issue that I've seen in subtle forms in the article is weasel wording. This is using statements like, "Experts claim..." or "Many people believe..." or "A majority of women say...", to validate facts that have tenuous or no source support. Watch out for this tendency.
There is no caption in the picture of the McDonald's restaurant. There should be a caption per WP:IMAGE.
Is "breastfeed" one word or two? I think two but you may want to check that. Breast milk sons is a very interesting section that was new to me. That's what I love about this encyclopedia. Always something new and informative.

Economic rights

See WP:LIST. Embedded lists are discouraged. Consider breaking the list in this section down into prose.

Education

Avoid one sentence (stub) paragraphs.

Mobility

Another embedded list that could be converted to prose in this section.
The word "generally" is used quite a bit in the article. I assume it is to quantify a generalized statement but because of its overuse it loses its meaning. This is more of an issue that would come up at WP:FAC should you wish to push the article further than GA standing.
I have a question regarding all of these regulations for women, do they apply to women accompanied by a guardian? Example, women have limited access to bus and train service. Is this only for women unaccompanied by a guardian or all women regardless of whom she is with?
The end of this section specifies "American citizen women and boys". Could this be internationalized to "foreign citizen" or "non-Saudi citizen"? Does it have to be specifically American citizen? If so this should be explained in the article.

Legal issues

Why is mahram italicized in this section only?
A one-sentence section is looked down upon. Can this be expanded or combined with another section? Referring to Women's testimony section.
The first two quotes from the Q'uran are oddly placed within this section. The first relates to inheritance though it is in the section about Political life. The second relates to testimony though it is in the section about marriage. Can the quotes be moved to section more applicable to their subject matter?
In the Parental authority section, does ref 82 apply to the entire section? If so could you combine the two "paragraphs" into one?
The Sexual violence and trafficking section is very one-sided. Overall the article has been very neutral in its language, but this section feels very critical of the Saudi legal system regarding its stance on sexual violence against women. Is there another side to this argument? Do conservatives have a voice here? I'm not in any way advocating that women should be punished for being raped, but I just want to be sure both sides are given full voice.

Change

This quote is an example of weasel wording:

"Wajeha al-Huwaider is often described as the most radical and prominent feminist activist in Saudi Arabia"

Who describes her as the most radical and prominent feminist activist in Saudi Arabia?

The quote that follows the statement that Huwaider is a show-off does not support the claim that she is a show-off. Consider a different quote or a different adjective to describe Huwaider.
"Many believe slow change is the only kind possible." Who and how do you know?
"Most Saudis oppose mixed workplaces and women driving in cities. Most women want to wear the veil and don’t think women should hold political office. Many Saudis view their country as “the closest thing to an ideal and pure Islamic nation,” and therefore most in need of resistance to Western values."

More examples of weasel wording, "Most Saudis oppose...", "Most women want...", "Many Saudis view...". Do the refs at the end of this paragraph support these statements? If so then they should go directly after the sentence (in my opinion).

It would be good to identify who Thomas Friedman is, columnist for the NY Times. Yeah he's linked but it would still serve to support his inclusion in the article by identifying him and linking him.

Foreign views

"Saudi women are denied many of the same rights that ‘Blacks’ and ‘Coloreds’ were denied in apartheid South Africa and yet the kingdom still belongs to the very same international community that kicked Pretoria out of its club."

Who said this quote? It's insightful and I know there's a reference but if there's a way to attribute it within the article that would be good.

The above comment about Thomas Friedman would also apply to Mary Kaldor and Daniel Pipes in this section.

References

The format for the website references needs to follow a template like {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}. You need to have at least the url, publisher, and accessdate. See WP:CITE for more thoughts on this.
There are a large number of different, valid referencing formats, the key though is consistency. Pick one and use it throughout.
It appears as though most of the references are credible. Watch the use of discussion forums or blogs. Reviewers take a dim view to the credibility of these sources.

I would think there must be some books on this subject. Check google books. This is an excellent source for online study material. Books are seen as highly credible and should you wish to take this to FA standing you'll need to beef up the sourcing with books and/or academic journals.
I do see a couple of books within the sourcing. Consider using a reference format that separates books from other on-line material. This will be important if you are referencing one book several times. In the references section you could use the author's last name, date of the book and page number. Then in a separate bibliography or notes section you would have the full parenthetical reference of the book. Just a thought.
For example, ref 66 says, "Nakshabandi,1993". I don't see any other reference to this anywhere. Is this a book? Who is Nakshabandi? These sorts of vague references will need to be fixed.

Overall

Given the subject matter the article is very balanced and well supported.
The writing is ok for GA standards.
I think the get the artice to GA quality you will need to work on the following items:

Expand the lead.
Make sure your quotes are consistent with MOS.
Check images for captions and compliance with WP:FU.
Address the weasel wording issue.
Expand or combine stub paragraphs.
Heavy work needs to be done on the referencing to make a consistent format.
Review the rest of my comments don't take the above list as all that needs to be done, I just picked out the highlights.

The article could certainly become a candidate for Featured status. To get there a thorough review of the prose and grammar will need to be undertaken. Also the references will need to be examined critically, and more academic journals and books will need to be added.

This concludes my review, I hope that I was able to help give you some input to move the article forward. I wish you nothing but the best and thank you for the insightful read. Please consider reviewing an article at WP:PR or WP:GAC to help reduce the backlog at these two sites. I do not routinely watch review pages so if you have specific questions or comments on my review please leave them on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]