Talk:2001/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Freedom4U (talk · contribs) 18:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll be doing this review over the coming days. :3 F4U (they/it) 18:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

First round

Spotcheck

Random spotcheck of 28 sources:

4. The source, which is a primary source (if it had lasting impacts there should be secondary sources on it), since its the newspaper report from the time period, does not call it the EDSA revolution, though it does compare the incident to it. No copyvio.

11. Neither the link nor the archive works. I suspect, given that its a primary source, that I'll have to defer to my statement for ref 4.

24. No copyvio/Verified

28. No copyvio/Verified

32. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source (military treaty)

49. Source states single largest defeat, but does not describe it as the first major offensive by American and Northern Alliance forces. No copyvio - Primary source. (newspaper)

62. No copyvio/Verified

67. Press release from the time period. Does not verify sentence. No copyvio.

78. No copyvio/Verified

81. Source states they're the original ones (rather than a new line?). No copyvio.

101. No copyvio/Verified - Is aviation24 a reliable source?

104. No copyvio/Verified

108. No copyvio/Verified

122. 750 page report with no page numbers cited.

139. No copyvio/Verified

152. No copyvio/Verified - perhaps [1] might be a better ref

156. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

158. Perhaps Freedom of Mobile Multimedia Access might be worth linking there. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

177. ?? - The title of the source is "Japanese Colleges and Universities"; I don't have access, but I highly doubt that this is the right ref

184. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

188. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

189. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

202. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

203. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

213. No copyvio - The numbers don't match the ref.

222. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

248. No copyvio - The ref doesn't mention the Ukrainian Air Force.

256. No copyvio/Verified - Primary source

258. No copyvio/Verified

My broad comments after going through these sources is that the article relies way too heavily on primary sources (particularly press releases or primary source documents which should definitely be replaced, but also breaking news reports from the time period). I would also suggest you go through the article and verify every source.

Missing items

I believe there are some items that are not covered in the article that should be; or are listed in the article, but should be included as prose. I'll add more as I find them.

• 2001 Turkish economic crisis
• Patriot Act

Potentially added as prose?

• Founding of Wikipedia
• China's entry into the WTO had long lasting impacts

Lede

At the moment, the lede is far too small and doesn't adequately cover the content of the article. For example, it lacks any coverage of the culture section, the climate section, the population section, or the economy section.

Population

The "Population" section should really be better titled "Demographics". Also I don't think the see also is appropriate here.

• The world population on January 1, 2001, was estimated to be 6.190 billion people, and it increased to 6.272 billion people by January 1, 2002. - Remove "it"
• 2001 was designated as International Year of Volunteers by the United Nations. Necessary?
• The number of global refugees in 2001 was approximately 12 million. Awkward phrasing

Conflicts

• Ref 26 appears to be a pretty good source and should really be the kind of source used for the rest of the article.
• The Bandaranaike Airport attack was a deadly attack Could be phrased better to provide more information and less repetition
• on April 18, and I would suggest replacing the , and with a semicolon
• notable conflict The source says its the only interstate conflict
• The Second Intifada marked increased conflict between Israel and Palestine in 2001 when terrorists affiliated with Hamas carried out suicide bombings and other attacks on Israeli citizens. Both refs here are primary sources and the sentence appears to vastly oversimplify the conflict. See: [2]
• The September 11 attacks by Al-Qaeda took place when 19 terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes and crashed two of them into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one near Stonycreek Township, Pennsylvania. 2,977 people were killed; the attacks and the subsequent global war on terror were events that defined 2001. Unwieldy sentence that should be split. I would note that The September 11 attacks by Al-Qaeda took place specifically is pretty awkward phrasing.
• The United States demanded that the Taliban extradite Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and end state-sponsored terrorism in Afghanistan. Ref needed. NYTimes article doesn't state that.
• invasion of Afghanistan Should be wikilinked
• intensifying the ongoing Afghan Civil War Not verified
• Why is Hamid Karzai wikilinked the third time he's mentioned, instead of here?
• Wikilink to Afghan Interim Administration

Other

@Thebiguglyalien: Sorry for taking a bit over the seven days! This was a long article and it took a while to get through it. These are just my initial comments, I'll add more in a new section once I give it a few more reads. :3 F4U (they/it) 13:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll note that this is a sort of "trial run" for years articles as GA nominations. Currently the only one is 1346, and that one is a bit different given the different level of coverage for that era. I've also been working on 2002, where I put more focus on secondary sources. I could definitely copy over some of the sourcing methodology from that article. But with all that said, any feedback for this as its own article is helpful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Freedom4U, I'm sorry, I've been neglecting my own GA nominations to review others this month. Now that the GA drive should be finishing up in a few days, I can hopefully focus most of my wiki-attention on this. So presumably the first step is to start putting together some secondary sources (like I said, 2002 is an example of such an article with secondary sources). I'll get started on that soon unless you have any thoughts. The other thing is the timeline: the general consensus so far has been to leave those in as the rest of the article is expanded, but that raises questions about sourcing and inclusion criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Freedom4U, it took longer than I had hoped, but I've redone the sourcing for the article's prose, and I think it's much stronger now. I have yet to get into the events timeline, because that's a little trickier. I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#How should year timelines be sourced? to elaborate on the issue and see if anyone else has feedback. It looks like this is probably going to be the main obstacle to promotion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for the ping, you've got my attention right as I've gotten a lot of free time again to edit again :) I've looked at the changes and here's just a few things I've noticed while reading it.

• It escalated as terrorists affiliated with Hamas carried out attacks on Israeli citizens and the Israeli military responded with strikes against Palestine. This doesn't appear to match the text of the source. In particular, it doesn't specifically single out Hamas nor does it call the Palestinians terrorists. The article also doesn't reflect the weight the source provides in describing Israel's response as disproportionate. The source also doesn't describe the attacks as "tit for tat", which the article seems to suggest.
• I'm loving the additions to the art section. I knew there was more material to expand that out.
• I'm unsure about whether we should really be weighting [3] (cited in A lawsuit sought to break up Microsoft as a monopoly, but it was unsuccessful.) Partially because the link includes "/blog/" and also partially because it doesn't seem to reflect our article on the subject.
• amid its own religious disputes Taking from the source, perhaps better to rephrase this as amid the introduction of Islamic law.
• The Incheon International Airport Remove "The".
• I know there's some level of an intersection between politics and law, but I think perhaps some of the politics section would better fall under a "Law" section (stuff determined by lawmakers in "Politics" and stuff determined by courts/lawyers in "Law"). The last two paragraphs of "International" and certain parts of the last paragraph of "Domestic" might be better served by such a section.
• The mini paragraph on the two coups might benefit from being moved up to make it the second paragraph of the section.
• The mini paragraph on education doesn't seem to fit in the "Science" section. If anything (other than making education its own section), I think it might better fit in politics.

Good work on all the improvements. I definitely think that some of the removals could be re-added given more sources. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 08:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The other thing we need to be careful on providing undue weight for sources from institutions like the World Bank, IMF, UN, EU, etc., as opposed to academic sources and reviews. Anyways, speaking of the EU, I found this report from EIRO which may provide useful sourcing for economic data. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 09:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This Lancet article might help with demographics and health. This Lancet article might help with health. It's a shame this article on prisons is US-only, but it might still be helpful. Potentially this article (I can't access it atm because Sage is upgrading their site) on Islamophobia post 9/11. There's this article on ethnic violence in southern Thailand between 2001-03. (I've found these sources thanks to the "intitle:2001" keyword which I just learned existed for Google Scholar)

In addition, I think the 2001 Ukrainian political crisis could be added as prose and the inclusion of the 2001 Ethiopian withdrawal from Eritrea following a peace agreement would also be justified. I also think national-level legislative elections definitely can be included in the article--of which, there was the 2001 Polish parliamentary election, the 2001 Singaporean general election, among others (I mean the 2001 UK elections are basically equivalent to these and they're included). eBay is also capitalized incorrectly in the article and when discussing the Argentine economic crisis, it should include a wikilink to December 2001 riots in Argentina.

My suggestions for expansion here don't really come from the broadness criteria, but rather from the neutrality criteria, as I think their current exclusion are reflective of systemic bias. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 10:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The main change I made since we started this a couple months ago was switching from fact-first to source-first writing—something I'm trying to do in all of my editing. So I've tried not to say "I need to find a source for this event". Instead, my workflow has been to find a source that covers the year or one very general aspect of it internationally and then to summarize its main points. The Britannica Year in Review and Time Annual listed below were really helpful with this, as was the Annual Register that I found. Intergovernmental and NGO reports were also really helpful, and I don't think using them is significantly different than using an academic source as far as GA is concerned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• I rewrote the Intifada summary. I want to keep it simple, and more importantly, I have zero desire for the Palestine/Israel obsessives to swarm around this article and squabble about every word for months, as they tend to do. I've sourced it to my go-to general source, the Britannica Year in Review, which had a simple one paragraph summary of the events.
• I wasn't sure about the list of artists who were subjects of exhibitions, but if it works, then great.
• I've removed the sentence on Microsoft's court case, for the reasons you specified and because
• Great idea for law. I had trouble deciding whether a few of those belonged in domestic or international, so this is a natural solution.
• I was also unsure about the education controversies, and politics is a nice fit for them. I think the opening of a university fits better under science than politics though. Like you said, the alternative would be to create a separate education section, but there's not enough international education info in a given year to justify that.
• I made the other minor grammar and formatting changes.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Freedom4U, we've had this open for a few months now. Hopefully we can wrap it up. In your opinion, are any further changes needed before this meets the GA criteria? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien I'm sorry for the lack of reply. I'm just writing this so that you know I've seen your message. I've been reading through the article and I believe there shouldn't be anything holding up promotion. Expect another reply soon. Cheers ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment by Igguage

It's really nice to see someone working on the individual year articles, I hope we get to see many more of them from you!

I think it would be a good idea to rely more on yearbooks and the like, e.g. Britannica 2001: The Year in Review and Time Annual 2002. It would be more appropriate for this type of article to include to a greater degree what reliable secondary sources consider to be the most important events, rather than what Wikipedia editors think is most important.

(I haven't read the books I mentioned so I don't know if they are good/reliable sources or not, it was just to give some examples)

Igguage (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Igguage Ah, those were the kinds of books I was trying to find! I completely forgot that I could search libraries (and cough shadow libraries) for books instead of using Google which failed to give good results. I see also:

• 2001 Annual Review of Development Effectiveness: Making Choices from the World Bank
• AIDS Clinical Review 2000 2001 from Paul Volberding, along with many other year in review fro the sciences, but I believe that section is reasonably well-sourced
• Review of Fisheries in Oecd Countries: Country Statistics 1999-2001 from the OECD
• The World Health Report 2001: Mental Health : New Understanding, New Hope from the WHO
• Advocate: Webster's Timeline History, 2001 - 2007
• The World in Photographs: 2001 from AFP

The one big thing is that because these sources are all going to be in the English language (presuming you don't speak another language), and like many other articles, but even more here, is going to be the subject of English-language bias and bias for the global north. :3 F4U (they/it) 12:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Huh this appears to be your first edit to Wikipedia, how exactly did you find this GA review? :3 F4U (they/it) 12:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Its my first edit with the account. I have read Wikipedia for a long time, and have also made several edits as an IP =) Igguage (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Looks good! ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 08:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

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.