Talk:US intervention in the Syrian civil war/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) 18:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I am afraid that this article has quickfailed GA for simple reason that the article is completely unstable. Although in theory it is possible for an article about a major ongoing event to be edited to GA standard, this is not that article. There are a myriad of other problems too, but a simple read of the GA criteria should have indicated how unprepared this article is.

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• The main body of this article is a huge prose list, which is almost impossible to read as a narrative. This needs to be codified into proper sentences and time periods rather than listed day by day.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• Citations are extensive and well formatted.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• The lead is inadequate - it doesn't even mention the Syrian Civil War, the catalyst and backdrop for the campaign. We have only vaguest idea of the forces deployed and no real notion of how the campaign is going. In the third paragraph there are all sorts of extraneous details which shouldn't be in the lead at all.
• The background section is probably the best part of the article, and even that fails really to give much information about the actual background. The enmity between IS and the USA goes back much further than 2011 and is complicated by the US relations with Asad and the situation in Iraq, none of which gets any direct discussion.
• The air campaign section is a mess - lots of detail day by day with no overall assessment or strategy. it would read much better as a table or time line accompanied by a strategic overview.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• This is a tricky one to answer - its a fair representation as it doesn't pronounce judgement on either side, but there is very little from the IS point of view. This may reflect what is going on in the mainstream media, but still doesn't make for a balanced article.

• It is stable.

  

• As an ongoing event of global importance, this article is (or at least should be) constantly changing. In fact it looks like there has been little added since 1 January, which is not a good thing.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Images, as US government stock, are fine.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Thankyou and I am sorry the review was not more positive, if you disagree with my assessment then you are more than welcome to take the article to WP:GAR. I hope you have better luck next time, all the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)