Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Camp Chapman attack/archive1

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment‎ | Camp Chapman attack
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.
  • Not promoted - no consensus for promotion after being open for 28 days -MBK004 02:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Chapman attack edit

Nominator(s):   Cs32en Talk to me 
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it might meet the relevant criteria. The article has been reviewed by MBK004 (talk · contribs). I'm unfamiliar with the review process, however. There are probably a number of ways that the article can be improved, and the review may help to find and pursue them. One problem (criteria #5) is that few, if any, images are available about the event itself.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • Three dab links are present in the article, these need to be located and removed if at all possible. A number of your external links are flagged as suspicious, including a handful that are reported to be dead. The information cited to these links will need to be cited to alternate sources or outright removed. Almost all of the article's images are missing alt text, please add this to the article's images forthwith.
    • You've got tense issues in the article, some of it is written in past tense and other parts are written in the present. Pick a tense and stick with it all the way through the article. My recommendation is to go with past tense, for what should be obvious reasons.
    • There seem to be an awful lot of quotes in the article, while I understand that they are useful to the article's subject it may be beneficial to consider paraphrasing some of them to help reduce the overall number of quotes present.
    • Your citation style needs some uniformity, some citations are provided as "sentence (cite).", while others are provided as "sentence. (citation)"; Pick one of the two and stick with it for the duration of the article.
    • "The death offered a rare glimpse of a U.S.-Jordanian partnership that is rarely acknowledged publicly, yet seen by U.S. officials as highly important for their counterterrorism strategy." This keeps popping up in the article, I think it really only needs to appear once or twice. Trim the remaining appearances.
    • I would suggest putting the background section in front of the execution section so that some semblance of chronological order is presented; usually in these kinds of articles its backgrounds, incident, aftermath, closing notes. Just something to think about.
    • You've got a lot of header that hove only one or two small paragraphs following, perhaps you should consider merging some of the smaller section into larger sections. Case in point: Section "New Security Guidance" is only three lines long, a extremely short section and hardly worthy of a full header.
    • Try to lose the see also section, anything you have in it should be integrated into the article text wherever possible. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work on assessing the article, and for pointing out deficiencies that need to be addressed!
I have had a look at the current nominations for A-Class, and most of the articles seem to have been accepted as Good Article before being nominated for A-Class. I think it may be better to first do a Good Article review, and to relist the article later on. If that is also the view of editors more experienced with the review process, I would withdraw the nomination and the nominate for Good Article first.
On the issues that you mention, I'll adress them as follows:
1. Fixing dab links and external links.
Dab links and external links are fixed, added alt text for images.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Using past tense in the entire article.
Changed to past tense in some instances. In a number of instances, the use of the present tense seems to be correct. I'll have a closer look at the the article with regard to this issue later on.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rephrasing verbatim quotes. This may be more difficult in the section on the reactions of various people, as the tone of the reaction is often as important as the information or the logical argument that is being made.
Took out or paraphrased a number of direct quotes.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Changing citation style to "sentence.[citation]" Some footnote numbers need to be in the middle of sentences, because some sources are only being used for specific words, for example. The "sentence [cite]." style was most probably used by other editors who contributed to the article.
Citation style should be fixed now.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. The U.S.-Jordanian partnership get a bit too much weight in the current version of the article. Some of the content was added by another editor, and I didn't want to remove it to avoid WP:OWN issues.
Reduced and consolidated the information a bit. Maybe more needs to be done.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. I'm not sure whether the chronological order is necessarily the best one. I'd say the first question that needs to be answered is "What happened?", then "Why did it happen?" "How was the event interpreted in the larger context?" Another possibility would be to have the lead section, then a short section on the (physical) event itself, then the background, and then further information about the attacker, followed by the reactions to the event. I'll probably leave the structure for now, but this should be discussed further.
I actually think that the article should start with the event itself, because that helps the reader to understand how the background is related to it. Also, some readers might not be interested in the background and may just be looking for the plain facts.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. I made some of the section headers to indicate the appropriate place where further information should be put, both by others and by myself. Some sections grew larger as more information emerged, and branched into several sections, while others remained small. A the present time, the volume of additional new information is quite small, so it's a good time to merge some of these sections.
8. I agree that the "See also" section is unnecessary. In part, I thought the "See also" section is a regular section that would be regarded a as useful complement to the article itself, in part, it's also a WP:OWN issue.
  Cs32en Talk to me  19:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More opinions on this particular question are welcome.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Section "Alleged link to Pakistani intelligence agency"

I'd like to draw your attention to the section "Alleged link to Pakistani intelligence agency". I have some thoughts about how to handle it, but I would very much welcome input from outside observers.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
  • in the Execution of the attack section, a convert tag could be added to "three miles" to provide km equivalent;
 Done  Cs32en Talk to me  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • same as above for "50 feet" in the same section;
 Done  Cs32en Talk to me  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is some inconsistency in the way you treat the abbreviation U.S. Mostly you have "U.S.", but there is an example of "US" (without stops) in the Responsibility section ("a US drone"); in the Meeting at Camp Chapman section ("US administration"); in the Casualties section ("a US soldier"); in the Non-U.S. casualties section ("a US soldier"); Arrest and extradiction section "US authorities" and "US drone";
 Done  Cs32en Talk to me  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last part of the last sentence in the Non-U.S. casualties section appears to be uncited ("in part because of Jordanian human intelligence capabilities in certain limited areas and the large number of English speaking lower level GID personnel");
 Done  Cs32en Talk to me  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last sentence in the Political reactions and commentary section is uncited ("Several members of the United States Intelligence Community" sentence);
Not sure I added that sentence as a summary of the following subsections, similar to a lead paragraph. Could you comment again on whether this is OK or needs to be changed?   Cs32en Talk to me  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last sentence in the Expert and media commentary/Impact section is uncited (the unamed intelligence source sentence);
 Done  Cs32en Talk to me  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation # 129 (Eli Lake Washington Post article) is showing the full url chain, can this be embedded like the others?
 Done  Cs32en Talk to me  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spotting these issues! I've dealt with most of them now. Can you look again at the last sentence in the Political reactions and commentary section? I saw this as a summary of the subsequent subsections, but I'm not sure whether this is OK.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes I see what you mean. I think it should be ok, as the section below is well cited. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Camp_Chapman_attack/archive1&oldid=1089032911"