Talk:Third Battle of Gaza/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll spare the lengthy GA criteria copy and paste in, because the issues are the same as in the previous article. This article currently fails. WP:LEAD because it gives undue and mixed coverage on the article and does not make a good summary and it is consequently too long at the same time. This is mostly do to the imbalance of weight given to the details. Now, I am not a fan of the citation style, but personal preference cannot count against you, but the the bare link for http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=ior!l!mil!17!6!78_f024r needs to be fixed and I am very concerned with the usage of WP:PRIMARY sources in this article. The quotes and comments should be removed as these are capable of error and I think there may be some original emphasis in the bolding which is a form of editorializing and drawing attention to a matter that can and should have been covered in proper detail with a better source. While the article is well-written in form, it suffers form a lack of inline referencing for the specific claims and this is a major issue with the WP:MINREF aspect of the GA criteria. I think that the situation that we currently have is going to result in the failure of this article, but I will place it on hold in the case that someone can rise to the challenge of fixing it. Many of the sources have not yet arrived for me and I have not completely gone through all the details for this article, so this is not to be considered the final review, but this is just a starting point upon which I will then be able to try and use what sources I can obtain to check and verify the material. Previously, I was concerned about WP:OR matters, but I this article seems to be more thorough and I haven't really gone into fact checking yet (no sources have arrived at this time). Placing it on hold now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that ChrisGultieri. I see what you mean about the lead and would re edit it if I wasn't worried about the subject ban.
- Could you advise me how to fix the bare link as I'm not sure how to go about this.
- Yes, I agree the bold words are editorialising and should be removed. Sorry I overlooked this. But Allenby as commander in chief of the EEF is a very good source for this broad scope information, as is Loudon for the first hand description of his part in the attack. The quotes by Allenby and Loudon, have been published in the sources quoted.
I'm hoping for some clarification about the subject ban and will let you know as soon as possible. --Rskp (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- By definition, discussing it is violating the topic ban, this is why I held off and I did not respond on your talk page and instead commented on someone who could take it. I'm not unfamiliar with this matter, check if you don't believe, and I do not think even that post you made was acceptable. The interpretation by one admin can be very different from another. Please sit this out, I don't want to see anyone blocked over this and I took this review thinking that my sources and my connection and ability to get the sources would help me silently fix this and pass it - but I can't. I'm going to call in some help, but it is not you who can edit it at this point. Wait some time and appeal the topic ban later, but every time it is broken, doesn't matter if "good or bad", it kicks that can down the road. I'm very very diverse in interests and role - so it doesn't affect me much - but it does too. Please understand why I cannot advise your further participation in this review. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Gday - I removed the emphasis from the quote and made an edit which (hopefully) addresses the bare url. It was a little difficult to determine the actual title of the page so quite happy if someone thinks it needs to be changed and can suggest an alternative. Unfortunately I do not have access to most of the sources that have been used for this article so I won't be able to assist with some of the other issues raised. Anotherclown (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- By definition, discussing it is violating the topic ban, this is why I held off and I did not respond on your talk page and instead commented on someone who could take it. I'm not unfamiliar with this matter, check if you don't believe, and I do not think even that post you made was acceptable. The interpretation by one admin can be very different from another. Please sit this out, I don't want to see anyone blocked over this and I took this review thinking that my sources and my connection and ability to get the sources would help me silently fix this and pass it - but I can't. I'm going to call in some help, but it is not you who can edit it at this point. Wait some time and appeal the topic ban later, but every time it is broken, doesn't matter if "good or bad", it kicks that can down the road. I'm very very diverse in interests and role - so it doesn't affect me much - but it does too. Please understand why I cannot advise your further participation in this review. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- ChrisGaultieri, you misunderstand me. I was not suggesting a discussion with you about the subject ban, but how to best fix the bare link. Thanks Anotherclown for you help. --Rskp (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Chris - I had a go at trimming some unnecessary detail from the lead per your comments above - pls see dif here [1]. Does this address your concerns here or do you feel further work is req'd? Anotherclown (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- It meets the minimum requirements now, so I'll pass this. Sorry about the delay. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Chris - I had a go at trimming some unnecessary detail from the lead per your comments above - pls see dif here [1]. Does this address your concerns here or do you feel further work is req'd? Anotherclown (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)