GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: JoeGazz ♂ 18:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Skipping my normal template.
I'm going to skip my normal template and do this a different way. This article was just failed at
Talk:September 11 attacks/GA2 not even two weeks ago and you are already nominating it again? That's
bold but I will go ahead with the checks but in a different manner. I am going to check first to see if what was of concern in the previous GA nomination was addressed and fixed. I will make a list of that below in a subsection.
This section is a work in progress...
This section is what I call Joe's Quick Fail Criteria, something where you get 2 days to fix what is addressed specifically from the old GA Review that is still of a concern. This article, like it was said is a
WP:IAR case, so that is a little out of my comfort zone so I will ask other opinions along the way. Let's begin.
Please fix the errors above, if they are not fixed by July 20, 2011 at 19:30:00 the article will be failed. Please allow me to note that I am going to be looking in to the Good article criteria, MOS, and my personal opinions of what a good article needs to have. I will be very tough on my good article reviews because I will not put my name on something that is less than quality. JoeGazz ♂ 19:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Reading article and taking into consideration MOS and no previous GA...
Well, I am quite surprised with the dedication of all of the other editors who have worked on this article, it certainly has come a long way and I am impressed to say that I have found minimal errors that need fixing and hope that these can be debated, fixed, and the article passes this GA nomination.
Personally, that is all I see off the first check, I am going to check it over again later, but if you could please respond to these or fix them, that would be great! I believe August 2, 2011 is when these should be fixed by. Please don't hesitate to ask more questions and I will do another check later and post anymore findings here. JoeGazz ♂ 15:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The debate below has closed and a decision rendered.
I'm going to wait for the discussion below regarding a "See Also" link to finish up so there is no active discussion when I close this.
JoeGazz
♂ 19:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
(commenting on this review without reading the article in question) Would it be possible to get a more thorough (point specific) review. Reading over this I am not sure that you have stated what the problems are or aren't clearly to the editors involved. Are you saying that only the lead needs to be expanded as of now - thus all the other concerns have been address? If so moving on should be easy? Moxy ( talk) 04:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Reviewer Comment: Yes, I see that the other concerns in the previous reviews have been addressed and thank you for telling me about the delisting, can you please link me to that reassessment for reference only? In the "Main Review" section I will be pointing out new points of concern to me and always explain why they need to be fixed. The standard time I place an article on hold for is 7 days, however, in this case, I am going to place it on hold for 14 days if any remaining issues stand to allow the nominator, along with other editors more than a substantial amount of time to fix the article and address the concerns. The concerns before were from old GA reviews which have been addressed and should be disregarded from this point forward. JoeGazz ♂ 15:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't have much experience with the GA process, but is this articles (or any other articles) GA fate in the hands of a single editor? RxS ( talk) 17:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe this article would be incomplete if it does not include a link to the related article about conspiracy theories. I base my believe on the notion that the conspiracy theories are a mayor component of Popular Culture aftermath of the event. Books are written about truther culture and comedians use the subject in their work. This is general knowledge for which I hope I won't be required references. I do not believe mentioning the conpiracy article in the prose is indipensable. I believe a link will suffice. Stapler80 ( talk) 05:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
WFC, the obvious parent article for 9/11 conspiracy theories is Conspiracy theory. It's not self-evident that conspiracy theories claiming to explain 9/11 really have anything to do with 9/11. You're welcome to familiarize yourself with the archives and see how we got where we are. But after two recent RfCs, I can't see taking this up again so soon. Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe there is a erroneous factual implication in Attack where it is written "All aircraft within the continental U.S. were grounded, and aircraft already in flight were told to land immediately. All international civilian aircraft were either turned back or redirected to airports in Canada or Mexico, and all international flights were banned from landing on U.S. soil for three days.[32]" This grounding was sustained for most US flights, but I believe exceptions were quickly made to fly friendly Saudi Arabian diplomats and family members out of the US. This is certainly historically relevant since a majority of the hijackers were from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdteague ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: JoeGazz ♂ 18:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Skipping my normal template.
I'm going to skip my normal template and do this a different way. This article was just failed at
Talk:September 11 attacks/GA2 not even two weeks ago and you are already nominating it again? That's
bold but I will go ahead with the checks but in a different manner. I am going to check first to see if what was of concern in the previous GA nomination was addressed and fixed. I will make a list of that below in a subsection.
This section is a work in progress...
This section is what I call Joe's Quick Fail Criteria, something where you get 2 days to fix what is addressed specifically from the old GA Review that is still of a concern. This article, like it was said is a
WP:IAR case, so that is a little out of my comfort zone so I will ask other opinions along the way. Let's begin.
Please fix the errors above, if they are not fixed by July 20, 2011 at 19:30:00 the article will be failed. Please allow me to note that I am going to be looking in to the Good article criteria, MOS, and my personal opinions of what a good article needs to have. I will be very tough on my good article reviews because I will not put my name on something that is less than quality. JoeGazz ♂ 19:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Reading article and taking into consideration MOS and no previous GA...
Well, I am quite surprised with the dedication of all of the other editors who have worked on this article, it certainly has come a long way and I am impressed to say that I have found minimal errors that need fixing and hope that these can be debated, fixed, and the article passes this GA nomination.
Personally, that is all I see off the first check, I am going to check it over again later, but if you could please respond to these or fix them, that would be great! I believe August 2, 2011 is when these should be fixed by. Please don't hesitate to ask more questions and I will do another check later and post anymore findings here. JoeGazz ♂ 15:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The debate below has closed and a decision rendered.
I'm going to wait for the discussion below regarding a "See Also" link to finish up so there is no active discussion when I close this.
JoeGazz
♂ 19:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
(commenting on this review without reading the article in question) Would it be possible to get a more thorough (point specific) review. Reading over this I am not sure that you have stated what the problems are or aren't clearly to the editors involved. Are you saying that only the lead needs to be expanded as of now - thus all the other concerns have been address? If so moving on should be easy? Moxy ( talk) 04:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Reviewer Comment: Yes, I see that the other concerns in the previous reviews have been addressed and thank you for telling me about the delisting, can you please link me to that reassessment for reference only? In the "Main Review" section I will be pointing out new points of concern to me and always explain why they need to be fixed. The standard time I place an article on hold for is 7 days, however, in this case, I am going to place it on hold for 14 days if any remaining issues stand to allow the nominator, along with other editors more than a substantial amount of time to fix the article and address the concerns. The concerns before were from old GA reviews which have been addressed and should be disregarded from this point forward. JoeGazz ♂ 15:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't have much experience with the GA process, but is this articles (or any other articles) GA fate in the hands of a single editor? RxS ( talk) 17:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe this article would be incomplete if it does not include a link to the related article about conspiracy theories. I base my believe on the notion that the conspiracy theories are a mayor component of Popular Culture aftermath of the event. Books are written about truther culture and comedians use the subject in their work. This is general knowledge for which I hope I won't be required references. I do not believe mentioning the conpiracy article in the prose is indipensable. I believe a link will suffice. Stapler80 ( talk) 05:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
WFC, the obvious parent article for 9/11 conspiracy theories is Conspiracy theory. It's not self-evident that conspiracy theories claiming to explain 9/11 really have anything to do with 9/11. You're welcome to familiarize yourself with the archives and see how we got where we are. But after two recent RfCs, I can't see taking this up again so soon. Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe there is a erroneous factual implication in Attack where it is written "All aircraft within the continental U.S. were grounded, and aircraft already in flight were told to land immediately. All international civilian aircraft were either turned back or redirected to airports in Canada or Mexico, and all international flights were banned from landing on U.S. soil for three days.[32]" This grounding was sustained for most US flights, but I believe exceptions were quickly made to fly friendly Saudi Arabian diplomats and family members out of the US. This is certainly historically relevant since a majority of the hijackers were from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdteague ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)