Talk:Palestine (region)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 05:13, 17 February 2015 (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.	No issues
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fixed. Regarding layout, there is a "Bibliography" section, then a "Further reading" section with a couple works listed (refer to WP:FURTHER). There are issues with the citation style that require separate sections (see 2a.).
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.	Fixed. Significant issues, see notes after table.
	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).	Fixed. While I don't believe it to be "original research", most of the "History" section is poorly sourced and there are many unreferenced statements. See notes after table.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects mentioned. Some suggestions have been implemented. A couple suggestions for expansion/improvement among the other suggestions after the table (but aren't required to be promoted)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No neutrality issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Page history shows no recent content disputes.
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 with copyright status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant with suitable captions. However, there is no source for the information in many maps (see 2b. above)
	7. Overall assessment.	All issues have been fixed. Article has significant issues with references and reference formatting. Issues that need to be fixed before promotion are outlined below.

Issues which need to be address for promotion to GA (nominator, please respond after all my comments, not after each comment):

• Lots of unsourced text, this is especially important for this article given the contentious subject. I will add some citation needed templates where very necessary. The history section is largely unsourced (being written in summary style does not excuse a lack of citations) and the "Modern politics" section has just one source. Furthermore, many maps simply say "own work" and do not cite a source for the information. These maps are an integral part of the article, conveying information that prose alone doesn't/can't convey, and require reliable sources just the same as prose. (The citation need to be on the file page and can, but don't need to, be added in the captions in this article)
• Citations!!!!:

• The citation style does not meet the notes and references style guidelines. If the article uses short citation footnotes (which this article does), then they must be separated from the full citations: "[Short citations] are used together with full citations, which give full details of the sources, but without page numbers, and are listed in a separate "References" section." (emphasis mine) To fix this issue, consider using named references together with Template:Rp.
• (This issue is related and should be done, but isn't necessary for a promotion to GA) Furthermore, there are a lot of explanatory footnotes mixed in with the other references. "If an article contains both footnoted citations and other (explanatory) footnotes, then it is possible (but not necessary) to divide them into two separate lists, using the grouping feature described in the Grouping footnotes section of the footnotes help page." (WP:CITEFOOT) Although it says that separating explanatory footnotes is not necessary, it should be done, partly to reduce clutter but more importantly it makes it easier to properly cite the source. For example, the explanatory footnote "In his work, Herodotus...use circumcision. The History of Herodotus" does not properly cite the source; if the explanatory footnotes were placed in a separate section, then this footnote could then be "In his work, Herodotus...use circumcision.[1]" (with [1] representing a proper citation footnote). A couple of the explanatory footnotes are quite long and should be considered for inclusion in the prose, rather than using the footnote.
• There are lots of citations that are not properly formatted (and I have had a hard time trying to discern which are short footnotes and which are intended to be full citations, but are incomplete). Examples:

• "Studies in Hellenistic Judaism ：Louis H. Feldman"
• "Judea" and many more dead links with a bare URL or poor description...Wikipedia:Good article criteria states: "Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required, although, in practice, enough information must be supplied that the reviewer is able to identify the source." (Use the "External links" link in the "GA toolbox" at the top of this review to see dead links in this article)
• "Finkelstein and Silberman, Free Press, New York, 2001, 385 pp., ISBN 0-684-86912-8, p 107" This appears to be the book The Bible Unearthed, based on the ISBN and matching info. I noticed this because this is the only reference of the "History>Ancient history" subsection and seems to either support the whole section or the last sentence, which is a rather bold statement: "Modern archaeologists dispute parts of the Biblical tradition...elsewhere."

• Last statement of "Demographics>Late Ottoman and British Mandate periods" subsection has no inline citation, but states "(UNSCOP report, including bedouin)"

• There is a "Bibliography" section, then a "Further reading" section with a couple works listed. The topical works should be gathered in one section, per WP:FURTHER. That MOS guideline also states that this section should contain "a reasonable number of publications"; consider splitting this into a new list article (see WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY for details). I guess "reasonable number" is up for interpretation, but at least divide the "Bibliography" and "Further reading sections" into "Further reading" and "External links" (which would include the maps).

Other suggestions (these are not required to be fixed/addressed/added for the article to be promoted):

1. The "Modern politics" section seems woefully short/inadequate and I think it is better placed adjacent to the "Boundaries" section, or even as a subsection of it, since the former really only discusses the use of the term as related to the current, differing boundaries of what is called "Palestine". However, I think this section should be expanded to more clearly describe the regions/states present in the historical region of Palestine and the current political status of the region: self-government and international recognition of the Palestinian state, partition of Jerusalem, expanding settlement of Jews in the West Bank, as well as the security situation (boundaries between Israel & West Bank/Gaza). Israel isn't mentioned in this section.
2. Under "History>Ottoman Palestine" is: "The end of the 19th century saw the beginning of Zionist immigration and the Revival of the Hebrew language." The mention of the Hebrew language is probably not necessary but, on the other hand, "Zionist" should be defined in the sentence to note that this refers to immigration of Jews. For example: "The end of the 19th century saw the beginning of a Jewish nationalist movement—Zionism—which sought to establish a Jewish homeland in the former land of Israel. Immigration of Jews into Palestine [continue with a remark about how the population increased/accelerated until 1948]".
3. Per MOS:SEEALSO, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." I did not add the bold to the text. Most of these links are already found in the article and in the "Palestinian nationalism and the region of Palestine" navbox.
4. Additional maps for the "Boundaries" section.
5. A "culture" section should be added with a summary style overview of Palestinian people, plus other relevant culture in the region historically: cities, how the people lived off the land, cuisine. I realize this is about a historical region, but "geography" (including climate) section would still be useful. This would tie in with the culture section to give readers a better understanding of how the people lived.
6. While offline resources are completely acceptable, given the contentious nature of this subject, more easily-accessible online citations would be appropriate for readers to more easily verify content.
7. The "Evolution of Mandate Palestine and modern Palestinian Territories" maps would be best placed at the bottom of the "Boundaries" section, not before it.
8. Template:Main is "used after the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been summarized." (emphasis mine, summarized=summary style) The "Modern politics" section is not a summary of those articles; Template:Further should be used.

I am very tempted to fail the nomination because of how significant the referencing problems are. However, I'll put this nomination on hold for a week for the issues to be fixed (and will allow more time if there appears to be steady/lots of progress towards fixing these issues). I hope I've left enough comments/suggestions to improve this article. AHeneen (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi AHeneen, thanks again for the extremely detailed and thorough review. I have made a lot of progress on the points above. Please could you have a look at the direction and let me know if you have any comments in the interim? I am particularly keen to ensure that the improved sourcing I have put in place is acceptable.

Also, how do you want me to record on this talk page which comments I think have been completed? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I see you have made progress fixing this article and will keep the review open for another 1-2 weeks for the article to be fixed. I do not have time to thoroughly review the article, but I see some things that still need to be fixed. There is some content that does not have an inline citation and the citation style is still not fixed.

Please read Help:Shortened footnotes. An example featured article is George Harrison. The notes, citations, sources, & further reading sections of that article show how to separate the footnotes. The "References" section of this article has some full citations that need to be moved into the "Bibliography" section. Some of the short citations in the "References" section use Template:Sfn to link to the full citation. Template:Sfn is not required (but very useful), but short citations need to be consistent...use or do not use the template for all short citations.

I noticed that the boundaries section has been changed and is a nice improvement. I did not look for progress with the suggestions (listed #1-8 above) because they not not need to be fixed to promote this article to GA status. I only looked for the things that must be fixed. I do not care how you respond. You can refer to the suggestions using the numbers (1-8), but the citation and unreferenced content are the most important problems to fix. AHeneen (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have drafted a list below that I will update to track progress:

• Unsourced text
  • Filling citation neededs  In progress  Done
  • History section  In progress  Done
  • Modern politics section  In progress  Done
  • Maps  Done
• Citations
  • Overall consistency with WP:SRF  In progress  Done
  • Three examples given  Done
  • UNSCOP ref  Done
  • Consistency with WP:FURTHER  Done
• Other suggestions
  • Modern politics: combine  Done
  • MOS:SEEALSO  Done
  • "Boundaries" section  Done
  • Online resources  In progress
  • Placement of "Evolution" maps  Done
  • Template:Main to Template:Further  Done

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightbluowl

Apologies for butting in un-invited but I would like to stress some very strong reservations about this article receiving GA status without a very significant amount of improvement. Some great work has been done here, but there remain far too many un-referenced passages throughout the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The issue is mentioned above and needs to be fixed before the article is promoted to GA status. AHeneen (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, agreed and understood. I will add the references in throughout the article. For the avoidance of doubt, all the references exist already in the "sub-articles":

• For History section: History of Palestine
• For Boundaries section: the historical regional division articles such as Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem and Syria Palaestina
• For Demographics section: Demographic history of Palestine

So this is in progress. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Midnightblueowl and AHeneen, I have now finished implementing all the comments received. Please could you let me know if I have satisfied your concerns? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

So are you ready for a complete GA review? I will hopefully have enough time in the next 2-3 days. AHeneen (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am ready. Thank you. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok. The only issues I see is an unreferenced section (in "Middle Ages") from "In 1073, Palestine was captured..." until "...reducing Christian influence throughout the region." AHeneen (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I have now referenced this section. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright. The article is promoted to GA! AHeneen (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks for your help in improving the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference style

AHeneen, I am almost done on the "style" points. Before I move on to filling in the additional references needed, please could you confirm your thoughts on the revised referencing style? If so, I will then use that style when adding the new references. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. The referencing style is much better. The layout is ok. There are two notes that need a reference: :*"According to the Jewish Encyclopedia published between 1901 and 1906" and

• "According to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition (1911)"

Starting the note with these words is ok, but they still need a reference footnote like the other notes. The use of the short footnotes (in "References" section) is much better, but there are still some short footnotes that need to be fixed: bare links (#8 "KGF p123-124" and #13 "The History of Herodotus") and the presence of full citations in the "References" section (the last four, #90-93). AHeneen (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi AHeneen, I have fixed the JE and EB refs as suggested.

With respect to your comments on refs #8, #13 and #92-95, my concern here is that since these references are so specific such that they each only support one fact in the article, it seems unhelpful for the Bibliography to add these in there and then cross reference them in References. In other words, such specific references don't feel to me like they fit in a bibliography which has much broader relevance to the topic. I was looking again at the George Harrison article, and the editors there appear to have made some of the footnotes longer where the underlying source was not in the bibliography.

Please could you kindly let me know your thoughts on this?

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I see what you are talking about in the George Harrison article, but I do not find anything on any Wikipedia policy/guideline page to support this. Because this only affects six references, I think you should just use the standard approach (short citation in References plus long citation in Bibliography). AHeneen (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I have fixed this. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)