Talk:Millat Times

GA review

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

Nominator: Khaatir (talk · contribs) 03:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tioseafj (talk · contribs) 18:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I am planning to review this, here is my initial assessment based on the quickfail criteria:

• It doesnt come back as having any copyright issues
• it doesnt seem to be previously nominated for good article
• it is stable for the last four months or so
• it's maybe promotional? but not so bad i would fail it immediately
• no cleanup banners and its got references (which i havent checked yet)

So it is good there! And I will do a proper full review this week.

Also, I haven't done a GA review before, so ive tagged this requesting a second opinion from a more experienced reviewer, jsyk

thanks, /ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Questions for @Khaatir: (i may add more as i go):

• Under "Content and coverage" you've got:

In 2018, Millat Times reported on communal violence in Sitamarhi, Bihar, including the alleged lynching of an 80-year-old man, Zainul Abideen Ansari. Following the publication of a video report by Millat Times, local police issued a notice to the platform, citing concerns over public order.[9]

And under Challenges and Censorship you've got:

In October 2018, during the communal violence in Sitamarhi, Bihar, Millat Times published a video of the attack on Zainul Haq Ansari, following which Patna Police issued a notice to the media platform.[9][18]

Im assuming these refer to the same incident? But his name is different, are these different possible translations of the same name or?

• Citation 11 (https://www.newslaundry.com/2021/06/24/tv-channels-project-muslims-as-villains-in-umar-gautam-conversion-racket-case) is a 404 page-- i cant find an archive for it either, unfortunately, or i would have swapped it myself.
• (actually, you may want to double check your source links in general-- i havent gone over all of them, but i also noticed that citation [10] is supposed to be a specific book, but the link is to a jstor search for "millat times" which includes that book. (to clarify... it looks like its citing the fact that millat times reported on a specific protest, as confirmed by the fact that this book cited an article by them?)

/ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tioseafj Thank you.

• The discrepancy in the name was due to a typographical inconsistency. I have checked the cited source and standardized the name throughout the article.
• Citation 11 (Newslaundry) was working when added but now returns a 404. An archive link was found, but it also leads to a 404 page. Therefore, I have removed the related material.
• Citation 10 previously had an incorrect search link, which has now been corrected and marked as subscription access. If independent verification is not possible, the relevant paragraph can be removed.

Khaatir (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Few comments on the text:

• Millat Times covers various topics, including politics, social issues, minority rights, and global affairs. Bit vague. I'd assume it covers various topics, as a newspaper.

• Millat Times' editor, Shams Tabrez Qasmi, was incorrectly linked to the misidentified individual in some reports. Little unclear on this-- the article in question says "Media organisations ... shared the photo as one of Asad Ahmed, along with Millat Times' editor Shams Tabrez." Im not clear from either the source or the Wikipedia page if this means Shams Tabrez was in the photos being shared, or if he was one of the people sharing the incorrect photos. Can you clarify this?

General-- The prose is pretty good overall, though almost each sentence is its own paragraph, which is a little choppy. I think you could combine some of them. Especially "Content and coverage", which is just sort of a list of things it has reported on.

Also, the sections seem a little random? Like, this is under "Digital Presence":

• A 2024 study categorized Millat Times as one of several independent digital media platforms that identify with the Muslim community, while others opt for neutral branding, which the study suggested was to avoid stigmatization

not really sure why? other than it being a digital newspaper i guess And this, under "content and coverage":

• In April 2023, multiple media outlets, including Times of India and Economic Times, misidentified a photograph as that of Asad Ahmed, son of Atiq Ahmed. Millat Times' editor, Shams Tabrez Qasmi, was incorrectly linked to the misidentified individual in some reports.

isn't really coverage by millat times, its coverage about millat times (or at least its editor), yes?

So in general I think i'd maybe reorganize some of this? Esp the list under "content"

thanks, /ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Will update this more later:

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	like i mentioned its a little choppy, and the sections arent super clear, but there's no grammar errors and it's easy to understand.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	seems good, no lists, lead section summarizes the body, etc
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	sourcing seems mostly solid, and they fixed the ones i had noticed earlier
	2b. 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).	a few of the sources I was unable to be sure about, because they are in urdu and i can't easily navigate the urdu internet. but the ones i checked all seem reliable and agree with them. And the sourcing is very thorough for everything
	2c. it contains no original research.	seems like every statement is very bare facts and backed up by the citations
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I checked and didn't find any copyright violations
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	yep, seems focused and covers everything I'd expect
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	yep, looks on topic
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	i looked up this on other sources and this seems to match the general tone-- i don't see anything major left out and it covers the controversies quite fairly imo
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	yes, it has been stable for about 5 months, except changes i suggested yesterday
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	yes, they were uploaded by apparently the millat times editor so he owns the copyright
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	yes, two images, the logo of the newspaper
	7. Overall assessment.	I think this is good, and i appreciate your effort to respond to any issues I had! I am going to leave this open for now, because as I mentioned I was asking for a second opinion on my first GAR, so i will wait to see if it gets one. thanks!

• @Khaatir: are you interested in continuing this review, and is this ready for a re-review? Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720: Yes, I am interested in continuing the review. The issues raised earlier—such as citation problems, vague wording, and structural concerns—have been addressed, and the article is now ready for re-review. Khaatir (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• @Tioseafj: Are you able to continue this review? Z1720 (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• I marked this as needed a second opinion. This can be removed if Tioseafj returns. Z1720 (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  I cannot take on the review but I must note that per MOS:ITALICWEBCITE, the term "Millat Times" needs to be italicized throughout the article and the italic title template needs to be added. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2026 (UTC)