Jump to content

Talk:Tel al-Sultan attack/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Abo Yemen✉ 06:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Personisinsterest (talk · contribs) 01:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Abo Yemen (talk · contribs) 06:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this Abo Yemen✉ 06:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) see Talk:Tel al-Sultan attack#Lead citations Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) see Talk:Tel al-Sultan attack#International reactions section Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Comment Result
    Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass The reviewer has left no comments here

Discussion

[edit]
Lead citations
[edit]
@Personisinsterest The lead section violates MOS:LEADCITE Abo Yemen✉ 08:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the citations from the lead and also cleaned it up a little. I do unfortunately have to also let you know I’m going to be unavailable until about 4pm EST today, so I probably won’t be able to respond much more until then. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no it's okay there is no deadline Abo Yemen✉ 12:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallangryplanet why did you restore the lead citations tho? Abo Yemen✉ 09:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen Updating that as well, though if I'm being super pedantic it does have an inline citation as required by MOS:LEADCITE. I'll grab a more explicit source since the one currently being used cites an image caption, though. 🥴 Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen Fixed, I hope - I went with the phrasing and sourcing from Arabic Wikipedia, I hope that's okay? Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallangryplanet:I actually prefer the older name as the new name that you've added translates to the "Holocaust of the tents" and not the "Burning of the tents". And regarding the all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it. part of LEADCITE is actually a quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability and I don't think that any part of the lead is going to be challenged anytime soon. The lead must summarize the entire article and not introduce anything new to it, hence there is no need for the citations. Abo Yemen✉ 10:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen Oops. Reverted myself + modified it so that the older name is cited within the body text as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tel_al-Sultan_attack&oldid=1253509454 Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallangryplanet The citations are still there by the way when there isn't any reason to include them Abo Yemen✉ 15:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, I think! I added {{subst:Leadcite comment}} because otherwise somewhere down the line we'll go through another round of the info being removed and re-added and at least we can point to that. Should I remove all other citations from the lede as well, or just those ones? @Abo Yemen Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see any reason to not remove them completely. Everything in the lede is already mentioned and cited below in the main article Abo Yemen✉ 17:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallangryplanet Abo Yemen✉ 15:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed this yesterday. Removed refs from the article lede. @Abo Yemen Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're good no worries I pinged you just in case you missed it Abo Yemen✉ 15:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallangryplanet would it be fine to not capitalize tents, or is that just how the phrase is spelled? Personisinsterest (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I can’t seem to find the original citation for “tents massacre”. And I saw that some of the new sources for Rafah tent massacre don’t support it, like Aljazeera just saying the incident was a massacre Personisinsterest (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a translation of how aljazeera arabic calls it. here is the link for it [1] found it in my history Abo Yemen✉ 12:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen do you have any particular opinion about "tents massacre" vs "Tents massacre" ? Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
since it's a name i'd probabaly go with "Tents Massacre". Id also recommend letting people know that this is how this attack is called in arabic and not in english Abo Yemen✉ 10:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thank you! Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I've also added a transliteration for the Arabic text.
Also, I'll be reading the entire article and finish the review when I'm free (hopefully tomorrow). Abo Yemen✉ 15:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I have found English sources for this, so I removed "in Arabic" from the text. I kept the Arabic translation and transliteration. Personisinsterest (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources, including the Aljazeera one, say "tent massacre" instead of "tents". Should we change this or just find sources for tents massacre? Personisinsterest (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should use the name that most RSs use, though i dont think an extra s would matter Abo Yemen✉ 06:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
International reactions section
[edit]
@Personisinsterest citations 98, 101, 106, 108, 116, 119, and 136 as of Special:Diff/1252855811 are citations from Twitter and other generally unreliable sources. Could you find other reliable sources and replace them with the existing ones? Abo Yemen✉ 08:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed 98, 101, 106, and 136 and their content sourced by it. Lewis Hamilton was already mentioned in the source for celebrities posting "All eyes on Rafah", so I think he's covered anyway. I found reliable replacements and direct sources for 108, 116, and 119. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
looks good to me Abo Yemen✉ 06:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the twitter sources for the foreign ministries and a few others - AFAIK, WP:TWITTER says that organisations reporting on themselves can be acceptable. While I admit there's some danger when it comes to "It does not involve claims about third parties;", I think that in this case we can treat these sources as acceptable because they are accurately reporting their own statements about a third party, if that makes sense. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Personisinsterest, please remember to use an edit summary especially when making broad and far-reaching changes, otherwise it looks like unexplained section blanking - even just a "Removing pending better sourcing, see GA review on talk page" would have sufficed. I'm going to try to improve this stuff with non-twitter sources, but with no context it seemed like semi-arbitrary removal. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Personisinsterest (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was thinking about that, I did remember something about exceptions for twitter, thanks Personisinsterest (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

[edit]

Why all those citations in notes b and c as of special:diff/1253860771? Just use the most reliable 2 or 3 Abo Yemen✉ 08:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We tried to exemplify that many sources called it a massacre, will do Personisinsterest (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Personisinsterest if you are going to ask for more RS for a term and then when those are provided, go in and remove them all as you did here, you need to at least include an edit summary explaining why you did so or it is going to appear as though you are using this GA review to carry out an edit war on the terms being used to describe the massacre. @Abo Yemen I added these extra sources because Personisinterest was concerned that we didn't have anyone actually calling it the "Rafah tent massacre"; I would like to restore them to avoid this issue in the future, is that okay with you? Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep the best 3 rs and remove the rest because having all these sources to verify one claim seems overkill Abo Yemen✉ 13:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! I've restored 2-3 refs for both pieces of phrasing. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to deny that I am doing this for carrying out an edit war to call this a massacre. I initially added some sources in the body to show that it was called a massacre, and other people came in and added a lot more. I removed a bunch because the Abo Yemen said to use the most reliable 2 or 3. I'm not trying to start an argument, but I have to say this for the record. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the IDF's review mentioned in the Analysis and investigation section? Did they not update us on anything? Abo Yemen✉ 08:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last I could find about the investigation was that MSNBC article. I don’t think they ever released the results publicly. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why not move it to the israeli reactions section? or just remove it completely till they release the results publicly Abo Yemen✉ 11:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, seems pretty useless if the results aren't out yet Personisinsterest (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions section

[edit]

The #Governments section is missing a citation Abo Yemen✉ 15:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallangryplanet @Personisinsterest Abo Yemen✉ 17:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. Most other sources were republishing the AA story. @Abo Yemen Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smallangryplanet fixed Personisinsterest (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I told you to remove it, I meant that you should use a better source bro Abo Yemen✉ 18:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took out anadolu (not reliable) and kept AP Personisinsterest (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the AP source now, it doesn’t actually say they recognized Palestine as a country in response to the attack. I think the whole thing should probably be removed. Personisinsterest (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen @Personisinsterest I added the AP as well, but I figured WP:ANADOLU meant it could be used in this instance. (given that it's a statement of fact, summarising what happened) It's not unreliable in all circumstances, just need to exercise caution. I figured we'd prefer that to the primary sources, i.e. Ireland's. But I'm fine with just the AP source. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Or not. Sure, we could remove it. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should check if the section passes MOS:LISTS (this is just a reminder for myself you can ignore it unless i bring up something) Abo Yemen✉ 15:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done seems good to me. Congrats! Abo Yemen✉ 06:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tel_al-Sultan_attack/GA1&oldid=1257384790"