Talk:Fayez Banihammad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Fayez Banihammad was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: October 5, 2006 |
 |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
I tagged this GA, even though it's short, because not much else is known about him. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Any chance at a birthdate? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 13:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, wth? Why does google indicate that this is the only example of "Banihammad" being a name? Is it not a name? Has there never been anybody else in the history of the world with the name Banihammad? Is it our transliteration skills that suck so hard? What's the right name? Pulling my hair out, grah! Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 07:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- بني (bny) means "sons of" in Arabic and حمد (ḥmd) is just a name. You could transliterate this as "Banihammad", "Bani Hamad", "Beni Hammad", "Beni-Hamad", or any other combination of the above. There are, unfortunately, quite a few "standard" ways of transliterating Arabic. —Gabbe 07:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Appreciate the quick response, I wasn't aware "bani" shared a root with "ben/bin", so that makes a bit more sense, though I still find it odd nobody's ever been transliterated this way Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 07:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Delisted GA
I'm afraid I must disagree with User:Quadell's assessment, the article has almost no references outside of two things near the bottom, as far as anybody not involved in writing the article can tell, almost everything may just be compleatly made up. This is clearly not a well-referenced article. Homestarmy 17:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
