Sorry to disappoint you, but this article is nowhere near FA status. There's not one single reference in this article, so it fails
WP:V right off the bat. You (or somebody) will be busy for months citing every fact in an article of this length. There's also only one small picture at the bottom of this loooooong article. It needs a thorough copy editing, too. Additionally, the article (the parts I read, anyway) reads like a promotional piece for the Kingdom. Whole swaths could be deleted from the article, since they are more about the Kingdom than the King. I don't mean to be discouraging, but you asked for opinions.
Jeffpw23:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)reply
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic
javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
Per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 67 tons, use 67 tons, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 67 tons.[?]
Per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 60 km.
Per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
Per
WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per
Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
This article may need to undergo
summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is
United States, than an appropriate subpage would be
History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
There are a few occurrences of
weasel words in this article- please observe
WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
it has been
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper
citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either
American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), harbor (A) (British: harbour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), analyse (B) (American: analyze), paralyze (A) (British: paralyse), travelled (B) (American: traveled), fulfillment (A) (British: fulfilment), program (A) (British: programme), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur).
Watch for
redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's
redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”,
etc.
This article needs
footnotes, preferably in the
cite.php format recommended by
WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with
WP:CITE or
WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
An article needing work. Probably a new review will be needed after the suggestions of this one are implemented. These are some initial remarks:
The article has no References and inline citations. Please add sources and citations, and read carefully
WP:CITE and
WP:FOOTNOTES.
Do we know the exact place of Fahd's birth?
Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs. They are bad both for the layout and the prose flow.
While at the Princes' School Fahd studied under tutors including Sheikh Abdul-Ghani Khayat. Who is this tutor, and why is he so important to be the only of his tutors to be mentioned here? And if he is so important, why don't you un-redlink him and create a stub for him?
"Indeed, it is claimed that he once lost more than $6m in one night at the Monte Carlo casino. "[1] Summoned back to Saudi Arabia" Avoid external jumps like this one. Make proper inline citations, and use, where appropriate,
Template:cite news and
Template:cite web.
"Numerous sources reported on Fahd's famously liberal youth ... ". What sources? Cite, otherwise this is
weasel words.
"King Fahd was generally considered a moderate and tolerant leader of an otherwise traditional and conservative nation, as was evident in his continued acceptance of a large foreign labour force in the kingdom and close ties to the west which became visible in the Persian Gulf War and liberation of Kuwait." Huh? What has this to do with his youth? Irrelevant uncited assessment placed in a wrong section.
"Marbella" is also put in the middle of nowhere! Put your material in order, and avoid stubby sections like this one. Merge or expand (after you put in order!).
"Early political positions" is also badly written. Stubby itself with insufficient information and stubby sentence.
And in the middle of the narration of his political ascent, career and reign, we get this: "Family and progeny". Badly placed section once again! Put it after the narration of his political career under the title "Family and personal life" (or something similar) or place it in the begining of the article in "Early years", which could be renamed as "Early years and family". Or keep it as "Family" but not where it is now. The article desperately needs a better structure. Read also
WP:LAYOUT, especially the "Structure" section.
"King Fahd's foreign policies included support on for the War on Terrorism which he described would crush the terrorists "with an iron fist". He has been a supporter of the United Nations. He supports foreign aid and has given 5.5% of Saudia Arabia's national income through various funds especially the Saudi Fund for Development and the OPEC Fund for International Development." Choppy prose. I also thing you could find more things about Fahd's foreign policy, and, subsequently, offer to the reader a more comprehensive analysis.
"The Islamic Revolution in
Iran in
1979". Per
WP:MoS we should not wikiling sole years; only full dates (
January 3,
1979).
Again in the "Foreign policy" section there is a huge project with the structure. You treat first the "War on terrorism" and then the events of 1979 and forward.
"King Fahd helped finance the Contras in Nicaragua.[citation needed]" citation needed should be fixed with the adequate inline citations. In any case, this sentence is another example of choppy and clumsy prose, missing analysis, verification and correct placing.
"Reform and industrialization": Where is the content of this sub-section?!
"He was buried in the last thobe (traditional Arab robe) he wore." Don't start a new section with "he". "King Fahd ... "
"Funeral" does not flow well. It gets listy.
I don't know if all these links in "See also" section are necessary. In any case, the tendency in Wikipedia is to try to get rid of these sections, and link these articles, if they are so important, within the main prose.
Sorry to disappoint you, but this article is nowhere near FA status. There's not one single reference in this article, so it fails
WP:V right off the bat. You (or somebody) will be busy for months citing every fact in an article of this length. There's also only one small picture at the bottom of this loooooong article. It needs a thorough copy editing, too. Additionally, the article (the parts I read, anyway) reads like a promotional piece for the Kingdom. Whole swaths could be deleted from the article, since they are more about the Kingdom than the King. I don't mean to be discouraging, but you asked for opinions.
Jeffpw23:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)reply
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic
javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see
Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
Per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 67 tons, use 67 tons, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 67 tons.[?]
Per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 60 km.
Per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?]
Per
WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per
Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
This article may need to undergo
summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is
United States, than an appropriate subpage would be
History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
There are a few occurrences of
weasel words in this article- please observe
WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
it has been
might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper
citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either
American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), harbor (A) (British: harbour), neighbor (A) (British: neighbour), favorite (A) (British: favourite), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), realize (A) (British: realise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), analyse (B) (American: analyze), paralyze (A) (British: paralyse), travelled (B) (American: traveled), fulfillment (A) (British: fulfilment), program (A) (British: programme), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur).
Watch for
redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's
redundancy exercises.)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”,
etc.
This article needs
footnotes, preferably in the
cite.php format recommended by
WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with
WP:CITE or
WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
An article needing work. Probably a new review will be needed after the suggestions of this one are implemented. These are some initial remarks:
The article has no References and inline citations. Please add sources and citations, and read carefully
WP:CITE and
WP:FOOTNOTES.
Do we know the exact place of Fahd's birth?
Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs. They are bad both for the layout and the prose flow.
While at the Princes' School Fahd studied under tutors including Sheikh Abdul-Ghani Khayat. Who is this tutor, and why is he so important to be the only of his tutors to be mentioned here? And if he is so important, why don't you un-redlink him and create a stub for him?
"Indeed, it is claimed that he once lost more than $6m in one night at the Monte Carlo casino. "[1] Summoned back to Saudi Arabia" Avoid external jumps like this one. Make proper inline citations, and use, where appropriate,
Template:cite news and
Template:cite web.
"Numerous sources reported on Fahd's famously liberal youth ... ". What sources? Cite, otherwise this is
weasel words.
"King Fahd was generally considered a moderate and tolerant leader of an otherwise traditional and conservative nation, as was evident in his continued acceptance of a large foreign labour force in the kingdom and close ties to the west which became visible in the Persian Gulf War and liberation of Kuwait." Huh? What has this to do with his youth? Irrelevant uncited assessment placed in a wrong section.
"Marbella" is also put in the middle of nowhere! Put your material in order, and avoid stubby sections like this one. Merge or expand (after you put in order!).
"Early political positions" is also badly written. Stubby itself with insufficient information and stubby sentence.
And in the middle of the narration of his political ascent, career and reign, we get this: "Family and progeny". Badly placed section once again! Put it after the narration of his political career under the title "Family and personal life" (or something similar) or place it in the begining of the article in "Early years", which could be renamed as "Early years and family". Or keep it as "Family" but not where it is now. The article desperately needs a better structure. Read also
WP:LAYOUT, especially the "Structure" section.
"King Fahd's foreign policies included support on for the War on Terrorism which he described would crush the terrorists "with an iron fist". He has been a supporter of the United Nations. He supports foreign aid and has given 5.5% of Saudia Arabia's national income through various funds especially the Saudi Fund for Development and the OPEC Fund for International Development." Choppy prose. I also thing you could find more things about Fahd's foreign policy, and, subsequently, offer to the reader a more comprehensive analysis.
"The Islamic Revolution in
Iran in
1979". Per
WP:MoS we should not wikiling sole years; only full dates (
January 3,
1979).
Again in the "Foreign policy" section there is a huge project with the structure. You treat first the "War on terrorism" and then the events of 1979 and forward.
"King Fahd helped finance the Contras in Nicaragua.[citation needed]" citation needed should be fixed with the adequate inline citations. In any case, this sentence is another example of choppy and clumsy prose, missing analysis, verification and correct placing.
"Reform and industrialization": Where is the content of this sub-section?!
"He was buried in the last thobe (traditional Arab robe) he wore." Don't start a new section with "he". "King Fahd ... "
"Funeral" does not flow well. It gets listy.
I don't know if all these links in "See also" section are necessary. In any case, the tendency in Wikipedia is to try to get rid of these sections, and link these articles, if they are so important, within the main prose.