Talk:Mishmar HaEmek

Hello

Hello!

The subject written in the article is a Kibbutz in Israel, it is not a person or anything, it gives information about the kibbutz to outsiders. I was asked to write short information about the kibbutz, I just don't know the best way of doing so in Wikipedia.

The Kibbutz took part in the Independence War for Israel in 1948, and I will add it tomorrow.

Please do not delete the subject.

Thank you for your article! Can you please add some references and cite some sources so others can verify and expand the content? It would also be great to get things like the coordinates of the place (Template:Coord provides a cool way to automatically link to map pages etc.). HAppy editing, Kusma (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 20:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Next to the kibbutz is the manmade Mishmar HaEmek forest, a section of the Ramot Menashe park,[4] listed as a biosphere reserve by UNESCO and was planted by the Jewish National Fund and members of the kibbutz. This sentence is not clear. Is it talking about different things or is the forest in the park? Needs rewording.
  • I understand this now. It was the two commas followed by the ands that had me thinking it was a list. If you want you could just change the ...park,[4] listed... to "...park.[4] It is listed...". AIRcorn (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Changed it now to "Next to the kibbutz is the manmade Mishmar HaEmek forest, planted by the Jewish National Fund and members of the kibbutz. It is a section of the Ramot Menashe park, listed as a biosphere reserve by UNESCO."--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• Why are the names bolded in prestate history?
  • It is common in books and encyclopedia that names are bolded. I think it matches MOS:BOLD.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I am not so sure. Mishmar HaEmek is already bolded in the lead and Kibbutz Hashomer Hatzair Bet is not yet a redirect. Even if it was the name and bolding should be in in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Alright then, I changed it back to normal.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
• In 1924 the JNF bought some 30,175 dunams of lands... Is lands supposed to be plural?
  • Fixed.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• ...which was then declared as the birthday of the kibbutz. Is that the 21st or 19th?
  • It is the 21st. I know it is quite wierd the members chose the day they received the message as the birthday, rather than the actual day the baby was born. Can you think about a better way to phrase it?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • That is a little confusing. How about "The birthday of the kibbutz was declared as 21 January 1922. This was the date the news of the birth of the first baby, born two days earlier, reached the members." You can use or alter it as you see fit. AIRcorn (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I think I'll remove the part about the baby and keep the date. In another, more reliable source (a report of HaShomer HaTzair movement from 1927), 21 January 1922 is mentioned as the day the kibbutz gathered (i.e. the founding members). The source for the baby story is the website of the kibbutz.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• In 1925 the kibbutz, which consisted of 60 men and women, and six children... Long and awkward run on sentence.
  • I have expanded the entire paragraphed and re-written few of its parts. The changes can be seen here.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• ...despite concerns of the Jewish Agency about the resettlement in the region. What were these concerns?
  • I've removed this line, as it written very vaguely in the source.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• ...and was constructed by the members of the kibbutz in order to reduce the costs... Another awkward to read sentence. I would consider removing this part unless you think it is important. Otherwise maybe a reword.
  • Broke into two sentences: The children's house was the educational institution of the kibbutz and was planned in 1931 but only built in 1937 after the needed funds were raised. It was constructed by the members of the kibbutz in order to reduce the costs, on a small hill near the Kibbutz..--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• In 1936 graduates of Hashomer Hatzair established a gar'in... Whats a gar'in? Also another awkward sentence. I think you should consider splitting some of these up instead of using multiple conjunctions.
  • Added a wikilink to the article of gar'in. Editted the sentence to: A gar'in of Hashomer Hatzair graduates settled in the kibbutz for one year until they moved to Rishon LeZion in 1937 and in 1946 they established the kibbutz of Hatzor.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• dozens of thousands of trees were burnt Dozens of thousands is an odd way to present a number. Can it be more specific?
  • Changed it to "tens of thousands". I searched for a source with how many trees were burnt, but I couldn't find any.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• On 2 February 1938 a member of the kibbutz... Another long sentence. This one uses who three times.
  • Changed it to: "On 2 February 1938 a member of the kibbutz named Abraham Goldschleger who was a guide for Ein HaShofet was ambushed and murdered by residents of Al-Kafrayn. Two residents of Ein HaShofet who accompanied him were also killed in the attack."
• The Palmach used the trees as cover for their main training camp and its fighters worked in the kibbutz. Not obvious how this fits. Who are the Palmach? What trees? How does this fit in with the preceding sentences.
  • Changed to: The Palmach (an elite force of the Jewish Haganah underground organization) used the trees in the nearby forest as cover for their main training camp and its fighters worked in the kibbutz.
• Main article: Battle of Mishmar HaEmek Is there supposed to be a sub heading here?
  • Added a "Battle of Mishmar HaEmek" section. I would name it "1948 war", but the majority of the section, except for one line, is about that single battle.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Apparently the Iraqis wanted to attack Ramat David Airbase but hit the kibbutz instead. Why apparently? Apparently to whom? Doesn't sound very encyclopaedia, especially in wikipedias voice. Maybe just better to attribute.
  • Apparently to Yoav Gelber, the writer of the book and source. I thought about writing "according to Yoav Gelber" but that felt like too much for a single incident in a village's history.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
    • It is the use of "Apparently" that I think needs attribution. It is written like an opinion and we should not present opinions in wikipedias voice. AIRcorn (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
• Should the State of Israel be a sub heading of history?
  • When I wrote it, the sub heading was "After Israeli independence". I will reinsert this heading, and I will also re-split the "prestate" section into "before the establishment of the settlement" (until 1926) and "early years" (until 1948).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• Tama is one of the biggest players in the worldwide market for this product ... Run on sentence.
  • Splitted: Tama is one of the biggest players in the worldwide market for this product and works with equipment makers such as John Deere. It has factories in three countries with a total number of 900 workers.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• In the factory the employees and executives who are residents of the kibbutz all earn the same amount of money while the non-kibbutz residents who are employed in the factory earn according to their work Don't quite follow the logic here. Are the non-residents on a contract while the others all get the same wage no matter their position?
  • Yes. That's the concept of the kibbutz. It was a somewhat communistic society, and Mishmar HaEmek retains some of it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed of the issues: "lands" to "land"; "60 men and women, and six children" to "60 adults and six children"; "dozens of thousands" to "tens of thousands".

I'll address the other issues when I'll be next to a computer. Most of the run-on sentences were translated from Hebrew. I'll work on that too.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't feel like you have to rush too much. I understand that you may only get to work on it on weekends so I won't close it early as long as we keep communicating. AIRcorn (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Next time I'll be home will be on 18 October. I might be able to fix some wording issues through my phone, but not major things.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

break

• The location was symbolic, as the location on a hill higher than the rest of the kibbutz was to signify the importance of education. This sentence seems to be saying the same thing twice. Maybe tighten to "Its location on a hill higher than the rest of the kibbutz symbolized the importance of education".
  • Yea, I like this wording.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• The population of Mishmar HaEmek was recorded in Israeli censuses This is basically repeating the table.
  • Is this so bad? It is either the table or the section. The section includes the sources, but is a bit messy, and the table can't stay without a section, and a demographics section is neccessariy. I think it is good to have the best of both worlds. I will probably add some information from the 2008 census, about male-female ratio, ages, labour statistics and more things I could find.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
    • It is not so much repeating the information, but repeating the information pretty much verbatim. I like your idea of adding more to the text. AIRcorn (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Added more.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Seven strata (layers) were found, which date as early as the early Neolithic period and as late as the late Ottoman period. Early as the early and late as the late. Why not just from the early to the late?
  • Hmm, well since it's archeological history is so wide, "as late as" and "as early as" fit here, but yes indeed it sounds funny with the "late ottoman" and "early neolithic". I'll change it to what you suggested, it sounds better.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
• A layer of stones that contained finds from the Pottery Neolithic period was exposed in a nearby site. Not sure what this is adding?
  • Removed. It refers to another location within the site, at the same stratum, but it doesn't add much.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• In the fifth stratum, whose finds were only found in a limited region in the south of the excavation area, three rows of stones that formed a rectangular space were built upon a floor were exposed. Grammar
  • Could you fix yourself? I am not that good with English grammar.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• Is there a suitable link for Wadi Rabah. i would even consider redlinking it if not as it seems like an encylcopaedic article.
  • There is in German, de:Wadi-Rabah-Kultur, but not in English.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• According to Micah Linn of Mishmar HaEmek Is there more to Micah apart from than living in the village? Why is his opinion mentioned? Is he an elder or a historian?
  • Couldn't find anything in the source or the web. I can only assume he is an elder.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• The Archaeology section went into a lot of detail and to be honest it was a bit of a chore to read through. I would consider trimming it up a bit to include the main points. Not sure we need a strata-by-strata level of description.
  • I understand what you are saying, but I am a big Archeology lover, and I found it very difficult to shorten it, as I think it contains a lot of information. I decided to keep the "strata-by-strata" level of description, but removed some sentences that went too much in detail.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• That is a lot of notable people for a small village. I would like to see some more cites there though. As someone who also live in a small village I am aware of how they tend to claim everyone who passes through so it would be nice to get some better context. For example a short description describing their relationship to the village (born, schooled, died, lived 1970-1980 etc) would be nice.

Aircorn would you think it is relevant that a German Jewish athlete was a member of the kibbutz for three years in the 30s, working in agriculture is notable enough for the article? Most of these notable residents were mirrored by other users from the Hebrew Wikipedia.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

If it was presented like that, with information putting his association to the village in context, then it is fine. AIRcorn (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Whats the purpose of the Bibliography? Did you use that for some of your references? It is fine I am just curious.
• The lead is a little weak. I would expect a better summary of the article. It mentions no history. It also says some things that are not included in the body in much detail. Not terribly worried about the jurisdiction of Megiddo Regional Council, but the one of the few kibbutzim that have not undergone privatization should probably get acknowledged better in Economy
• I have also put a few tags in. I imagine the cites are already present, but I feel those particular sentences are saying things that require a dedicated cite.

That concludes my review of the text. Thanks for your patience. I understand that you are busy so am happy for you to work on the above when you have time. I am flexible with most points, so don't feel you have to blindly accept my critique. AIRcorn (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Other comments

Per MOS:LEAD, which is part of the GA criteria (the it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections portion of "Well-written"), the lead should be two to three paragraphs long given the size of the article, and as noted above, it needs to better summarize the article and not contain any significant information not already in the body of the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Aircorn, BlueMoonset I've epxanded the lead now.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. We had a a long weekend and I was somewhere with no internet apart from what I had on my phone and have just now caught up with jobs back home. I will have a look now and hopefully we can pass this. AIRcorn (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Final comments

Looking really good. Just a few more points.

• From the lead. Its economy was based Has this changed or should it read "Its economy is based..."
• The notable residents section. Maybe you would consider some organisation. Suggestions would be putting the members of the Knesset together and maybe ordering by most notable. I looked at every persons article without a cite and while they all mention Mishmar, not all have cites to confirm this.
• Also check my last edit here and make sure you are happy with the changes.

Apart from that I think we are good to go. AIRcorn (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll go over these when I'll be home. I consider making a section for landmarks. There are some in the kibbutz (a museum, an historical cave, a cemetery with famous people etc.).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Aircorn I am done.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Excellent. I am happy to pass this. AIRcorn (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment

Presently, we have the sentence in the article:

"In 1924 the JNF bought some 30,175 dunams from Arab villages next to Nahalal in the western part of the valley. On this land, Sarid, Ramat David, Gvat, Kfar Baruch and Mishmar HaEmek were established."

I think this gives a wrong impression: as if it was the villagers themselves who sold the land. Afaik, the land was sold by absentee landlords; eg Sarid, Gvat is on land formerly owned by the Lebanese Sursock family. This should be noted, me thinks, Huldra (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Huldra changed to "In 1924 the JNF purchased lands owned by Christian Lebanese Sursock family near Nahalal. After this, it decided to expand south and in 1926 purchased most of the land of Abu Shusha, where Bedouins and Turkmens lived."--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Bolter21: Thanks, much better. I wonder if we should link to: "List of villages sold by Sursocks and their partners to the Zionists since British occupation of Palestine, evidence to the Shaw Commission, 1930," this was part of that Nazareth sub-districts-bulk of villages, me thinks, Huldra (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Name

Is there a policy on Israeli places to only give one form of the name? Ha-Emek and Ha'emek aren't wrong or even uncommon and should be mentioned somewhere in the article, no? — LlywelynII 10:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thechnically speaking, the correct way to write it would be Mishmar Ha'Emek, but there is really no true way to write it. Israel officialy name it "Mishmar HaEmeq", but Israel's official English translated are inconsistent and shouldn't be dependent on. The reason why the comma is dropped off in many translations is because it is difficult to pronounce the 'e sound when it follows another vowel, so instead of pronouncing it "Ha-'Emek", people pronounce it "Haemek". One thing is sure, writting it "Ha'emek" is wrong, because "Ha" is the Hebrew for "The" and is connected to its subject, so in English translations, the subject is treated as another word, although still connected to "Ha". So in conclution, it should be spelled "Mishmar Ha'Emek", but it can also be spelled "Mishmar HaEmek" per the actual pronounciation.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources

• Forest
• Education
• History
• History 2
• History 3
• History 4
• History/Economy

GAR

Mishmar HaEmek

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted This has been open long enough. I know I was the original reviewer so you can call it me revoking my pass if you want. Copyright concerns that have not been addressed after five months. AIRcorn (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm opening this GAR due to issues with close paraphrasing and sourcing. See some examples in the DYK nom. Some of the issues have been fixed, but given the extent I think a GAR is warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment from reviewer Looks like I dropped the ball on this one. I find it particularly worrying that the lead was copied as during the review I asked for it to be expanded and it is relatively easy to do so from the actual article itself. I am more than experienced as a reviewers and should have picked this up myself. Apologies for inconveniencing everyone. AIRcorn (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the current copyvio tool result. AIRcorn (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I (the original GA nominater) will be home only in two weeks. So either someone take upon himself to fix the issue, or just remove the GA status until I'll have a computer.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Bolter21: Do you have time to have a look at this? TheDragonFire (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll be home next friday. Until then I am available through the phone app.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Post-delisting discussion

Aircorn, I've fixed the copyvio problems as soon as I got my computer back in 22 December 2017. The users who started this GAR have abandoned it one by one. This GAR was posted, I responded by fixing the problem, which was followed by five months of silence and now the GA status was removed... Is there still an issue here that you need to delist the article?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: well?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I delisted the article because there was no response here from you except to say that you would get around to it. I asked at multiple venues to try and get a close, but again not much happened. I am a little annoyed that you inserted copy violations in the first place, and even more annoyed that I didn't realise it. If someone else wants to overturn this close I have no issues. Maybe ask @Nikkimaria: if they are happy with the current version or ping @TheDragonFire and Fish and karate: as they have shown some interest in closing. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bolter21: No one abandoned this review, in fact we were waiting for you as requested. There may have been a misunderstanding about the copyright issues at the time of Aircorn's close, but this is understandable given the lack of additional evidence presented here. Nikkimaria's comment on the DYK nomination indicates that sourcing issues remain after your 22 December 2017 edits and as such I endorse Aircorn's closure for the time being. If you have time to work on the article, please review the comments on the DYK nomination and make an new GA nomination. This whole thing is unfortunate, but please remember we're all here trying to improve the encyclopaedia. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mishmar HaEmek/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow review, real life and holidays have intervened! Resuming shortly. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I have begun the work. I really liked your opinion about the history section. I used it as guide and rewritten a third of it. I have arranged the "prestate" section into a subsection named "establishment", which refers to all events until 1947, and then starts two other subsections solely about the security-political situation of the kibbutz, so there's the history of the kibbutz until 1948 and military history of the kibbutz until 1948. I'll address more issues later. For you I advise to re-read the "establishment" section because I've changed the wording there without changing the content or touching the sources. Just see whether it makes sense to an English reader. As for the population statistics, the history sections say what sources say, while the demographics only refers to censuses. Still a problem?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually all of the history up until 1948 was edited.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Bolter21, thanks for your responses and edits! They look good, overall. I'll continue with the review. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Bolter21 - the article is much improved but there are a number of grammatical issues and other peculiarities of language. I understand this is tough as a non-native English speaker so I'd recommend requesting a copyedit by the WP:GUILD. The GA review can be put on hold until that is complete. Some sourcing issues also need to be addressed - see Table item 2a. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest continueing the review and I'll do as much as I can to fix the English and as soon as most issues will be solved and only a copy edit will be required, then we would put the review on halt until it will be done by proffessionals. It is not wise to copyedit the article now, becuause possibly there is more content to be added (such as, for example, the landscape around the kibbutz, climate, the forest, etc.) and then we will need another copy edit, which will just take more time.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Bolter21, if the article is going to undergo substantial expansion it's probably not the right time for a GA review to be ongoing - GA reviews require the article to be stable to be assessed correctly. I'm happy to continue the review and let you fix issues but putting it on hold doesn't mean giving up on it, it's just a mechanism to pause until the article is in a place you're happy with it and then I can return to re-assess. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know last time I've made a GA review the article was expanded with suggestions from the reviewers.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's make it easy. If you have any more suggestions on what you think is missing in the article or any non-grammatical issues, list them, I'll address them and then submit the article to the Guild. When they will finish we'll resume the review. How's that?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Bolter21, sounds good. For now the issues that I see are the ones listed below, especially under 1a (prose) and 2a (sourcing). Ganesha811 (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Copy. Then I'll begin working. Review is on halt.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Ganesha811, a review was made by the GOCE and I have no mor sources to add right now so we can resume the review. Bolter21--141.226.92.178 (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Noted, I'll take another look through soon. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Well? Ganesha811--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Bolter21, my apologies, this simply slipped my mind with some other stuff going on. I'll take a look in the next couple days. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing this tonight. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so having taken another look, a few things stand out:

• Overall, the article is much improved. Great work!
• It still feels uneven. The history section is badly weighted towards events from 1926-1948 - I understand they were exciting times in the region's history, but either an increase in summarization for that period or an expansion of the 1950-present section would be appropriate.
• Some sentences seem to have been thrown in willy-nilly - for instance the last sentence in the History about the 110 new housing units. When did the project start? Is it ongoing? Why is this relevant to the Wiki page?
• There are some grammatical issues, though I can go through and fix those myself later.

Overall, keep working on this - we're nearly there! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I am going to search through 20th century newspapers to find some interesting stories about Mishmar HaEmek post independence. One thing I wanted to do in the past and didn't was to cover the political affiliation of the residents who are clearly identified with the Israeli left. Maybe now its the time to dig in, shouldn't be that difficult. I'll also check the these willy-nilly-thrown sentences I saw you noted. Quick note, the residential expansion is relevent becuase now the kibbutz has about 1,200 residents, and 110 housing units can increase the population of the kibbutz by more than 20% which is fairly large. Unfortunately there aren't many written sources about it and I am struggling to state the obvious without breaking the rules of WP:OR.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

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.	In general, the prose is quite good, but the History section needs organization - some sentences seem placed at random or contain information unrelated to the main thrust of the paragraph. For example, this paragraph: "In 1947, Mishmar HaEmek had a population.... filmed here" does not work well within the context of the paragraphs before - focus on military history obscures this cultural history. The section "after the establishment of israel" is better. Mostly addressed. The "prestate history" header really needs to be changed - neither neutral nor clear in meaning to a non-Israeli reader. Addressed. Statistics about population are found both in the History section and in the Demographics. Probably better confined to Demographics. Some duplication at present. Partially addressed. Why is HaShomer HaTzair capitalized the first time it is used but given as "Hashomer Hatzair" the second time? Is it a Hebrew thing or just inconsistent? It might be worth mentioning the archaeological site in the lead. "now" instead of "know" in 'Establishment, 3rd paragraph Second to last sentence of that 3rd paragraph is grammatically incorrect and seems oddly placed - rephrase - maybe "At the time it was the only Jewish settlement in this part of the valley", if that is indeed the intended meaning. Remove "here" in 3rd-to-last paragraph of 'Establishment' and in the subsequent paragraph - replace with 'at Mishmar HaEmek' or some other phrasing. in 'Great Arab Revolt...' "by nearby Arab villagers" instead of 'by the nearby Arabs villagers'. Separate sentence for the command, right now it's a run-on.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. Complies with manual of style, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The claim in 'Demographics' that the residents are secular Jews does not seem strongly-enough supported by the linked source, which is not necessarily reliable. The statement as written implies that all current residents are secular, which seems like a strong claim. The second paragraph in 'Archaeology' is uncited - is the material coming from previously cited references? More specific citations would be helpful - we shouldn't have a full paragraph bereft of references. What is the source for "described by a member as 'a crime greater than murder'" in 'Great Arab Revolt'?
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass. No issues detected.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The geography section seems sparse - what is the landscape like around the kibbutz? What about climate? As part of a biosphere reserve there is also material that could be added related to that.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass. Good focus, not overdetailed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I'm not sure that "Prestate" history is a NPOV way of describing history before 1948, as it implies there was no state in the region. Change heading to something more neutral, maybe talking about Mandatory Palestine or similar
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass. No issues, most work done months ago, no edit warring.
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.	No issues - pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues - pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Status query

Bolter21, Ganesha811, what is the status of this nomination/review? The last post here was nearly six weeks ago, the last edit to the article was three days after that, which is a long time since with nothing happening. Are there plans to get back to this soon? This was nominated over a year ago, and took nearly ten months to get a review going, so there's naturally going to be more leeway, but it's important to get things moving. (I did check, and it appears that no request has yet been made to the Guild of Copy Editors, but if there's significant additional work to be done with the content, it makes sense to hold off on the copyedit.) Thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, my understanding is that the nomination is on hold until copyedits and other needed changes can be made. I agree it has been a while... Bolter21, when will you have time to work on this article? Let's figure out what our next steps should be. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It has been a rough couple of months and I struggle to find time for Wikipedia. I have now submitted the article to the Guild of Copyeditors and now wait for them. As soon as the article will be copyedited we could resume the review.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Bolter21, I'm sorry things have been rough for you lately. If you can find the time now, I would strongly recommend that you work on the other issues Ganesha811 has already raised in the review as soon as possible, so that the GOCE, when they are able to start (probably in two to three weeks), can copyedit that material, too. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of the issues were resolved, the main thing to work on now is the Geography section. I struggled to find sources back in 2017, now I'll try my luck again.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Ganesha811 I've continued the work. A quick summary of my work:

• Overall copyediting
• Improved the lead section
• Moved historical information from the "Education" section to the "History" section
• Enlarged the post-1948 section:
  • Background of the Tama factory
  • Added information about the dining hall building
  • The story of Keren Yesha
  • The large event in 1990
  • Information about the new neighborhood
• Removed the written form of the British censuses in the "Demographics" section. The information already exists in the table
• Added information about an archaeological exhibition--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  Bolter21, great, I'll take another look. Thank you for your continuing work on this article! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

  Based on my review, this is now a Good Article and I have passed it! Congrats and thank you again for your considerable effort to bring this article up to standard. You should be proud. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

  Ganesha811 Thank you very much for your time and dedicated review. It was an unexpectedly long journey and I am very satisfied with the outcome, I didn't think this article could be expanded further. Thanks again and stay healthy these days. If your government calls you to stay home just stay and keep up the good work here.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)