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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 17:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I'll post a review for this shortly. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 17:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mooonswimmer, I've posted a review of the article below. There are significant issues related to criteria two and three. You can look over the review, but this article looks like it needs major rewriting outside of GA before it has a reasonable chance of passing. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 18:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the time you've dedicated to reviewing this nomination, as well as your thorough scrutiny and dedication to the encyclopedia. Your feedback is clear, and I'm confident in my ability to rework the article significantly to address the concerns raised below.

While I'm both puzzled by and disappointed in myself for the misplacement of several inline citations, I believe I can promptly rectify the issue of text-source integrity. All the details you highlighted are referenced in other sources cited within the article, so I will ensure that a second spot check reveals zero issues in terms of verifiability.

Regarding the breadth of coverage criteria, unfortunately, it seems that there has been limited coverage of the attack in the weeks/months following the event. As it's a relatively recent event, there hasn't been substantial coverage of the "long-term aftermath," but I'll double-check for coverage in Tunisian, French, and Israeli sources. I'll try my best to remove any insignificant material in the "International reactions" section. Do you think the article can meet the "Broad in its coverage" criterion, or would the lack of coverage on the long-term aftermath of the attack pose a significant issue? Mooonswimmer 19:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

It's generally expected that coverage exists for all articles beyond in-the-moment news reporting (otherwise what's stopping me from grabbing a random newspaper and making an article for every story). This is one of the reasons that articles shouldn't depend too heavily on primary sources, like I said below. So I don't see any way that this can meet criterion three without at least some coverage of significant effects beyond the simple fact that it happened, but it doesn't have to be comprehensive. The investigations and the potential feud between Israel and Tunisia would be good places to start if those persisted, even if that would most likely be primary coverage as well. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 21:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I could only really find this relatively in-depth article published in Foreign Policy: After Synagogue Attack, Tunisia Ignores Elephant in the Room

This article in French covers what an independent Tunisian journalist perceives to be a lukewarm response to the attack, and this article in Arabic briefly reports on the Democratic Current's call for an investigation. This article is a witness' reflection of the attack and the response to it.

There's also this article in French, but it's behind a hard paywall. It might be of interest, as its introduction states: "With little experience of security circles, the new Minister of the Interior, Kamel Feki, has to deal with executives appointed under his predecessors. The context marked by the Djerba attack and a new investigation targeting political figures did not make it easy for him to take office."

I couldn't really find anything in Hebrew-language sources, barring the initial reporting of the attack and the standard condemnation by government officials and a few members of the Tunisian-Israeli community.

The first 2 articles contain a decent amount of analysis, but is it enough? Mooonswimmer 22:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I'd avoid a witnesses testimony if possible. The other sources look promising, particularly the Foreign Policy article. If it's okay with you, we could request a second opinion to get more feedback on what sort of coverage might be necessary; coverage is probably the most difficult of the GA criteria to measure. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 01:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sure thing, more insight is more than welcome. Mooonswimmer 01:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mooonswimmer, I opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Criterion 3 in articles about recent events, and I think they make a good case that it's just too soon for this article to be designated as a GA. The article doesn't explain the event's significance, and there are also stability (criterion 5) concerns because the article is subject to drastic change, as the primary sourcing will eventually need to be replaced by secondary sourcing. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 15:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I see how the lack of significant academic secondary sourcing would impede such articles from passing the "broad coverage" criteria. At the moment, we're lacking any substantial "rear-view-mirror" coverage. I'll improve the in-line citations, incorporate the bits of retrospective analysis I've found, and hopefully revisit this in a couple of years.

Thank you for taking the time to review this; I apologize for not giving it more careful consideration before making the nomination. Mooonswimmer 15:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

No need to apologize: any chance to improve an article is a positive as far as I'm concerned. I'll close the review now. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 15:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Well-written

The article is generally well written. Just a few notes:

• The lead does not adequately summarize the article as required by MOS:LEAD.
• The "background" section is sufficiently well-written for GA, but it does read like a list that jumps from one fact to another.
• The first sentence under "attack" is very long, including five commas and three uses of the word "and".
• the gunman was killed 2 minutes – Numerals 0–9 should be spelled out.
• participating in this year's pilgrimage – This should clarify that it's the year of the attack. In a few months, "this year" will no longer refer to 2023.
• as cousins - a 30-year-old man – Use an emdash (—) when separating ideas mid-sentence.
• Try to avoid individual sentences on their own lines per MOS:LAYOUT.
• The paragraph about Saeied's response is unwieldy and it repeats itself. It doesn't need to list everything he did or said in order, it just needs to summarize the general response and the subsequent dispute.
• with a few expressing frustration and hopelessness about staying in the country – Who is "a few"?
• threatens to deal a death blow to the pilgrimage tradition – "Deal a death blow" is not formal language, and it appears to be a slightly modified version of wording plagiarized from the source
• The newspaper also reported the existence of a secret plan for massive emigration – This needs to be clarified.
• There are some issues with present tense in the "reactions" section. This should be written in retrospect using past tense.

Verifiable with no original research

All sources appear to be reliable. There are a lot of primary sources, but that's not a GA issue. Earwig does not turn up any direct copyright violations.

• The president has been criticized for downplaying the significance of the attack and its antisemitic motives. – This is a contentious statement about a living person. Such statements are not allowed on any Wikipedia article without a citation. As it had none, I deleted it myself.

Spot checks:

• [3] BBC
  • This source doesn't appear to support to celebrate the holiday of Lag BaOmer
  • The source says three security officers were killed, not two police officers. I don't know if there's a distinction between police/security here, and the source doesn't specify whether it's counting the perpetrator.
  • Does this source support that it was subsequently locked down
  • Doesn't support the details of the cousins, but it seems the other source mostly does.
  • Close paraphrasing: He also promised to continue fighting "against anti-Semitic hatred" versus France's President Emmanuel Macron promised to continue fighting "against anti-Semitic hatred". The quote is fine, but it's a problem that the wording around it is the same.
• [6] Times of Israel
  • This particular source says 20 people were killed in 2002, not 21. It seems that it depends on whether you count the perpetrator. However you want to describe it in the article should be fine, but anything you insert should be directly supported by the citation.
  • I don't see any mention of a truck bomb in this source.
• [8] Reuters
  • I don't see where this supports that he parked the bike in a schoolyard about 200 meters away from the synagogue
  • Does this source say that it contained a few hundred worshipers at the time as the festivities were concluding
  • I don't see As he moved away from the schoolyard, and after monitoring the movements of a traffic police vehicle parked nearby, he opened fire indiscriminately at security units at around 8:13 PM
• [15] Jerusalem Post
  • Close paraphrasing: a 30-year-old man of Israeli-Tunisian descent, who worked as a goldsmith in the local market, and a 42-year-old man of French-Tunisian heritage, who had come to join in the festivities versus Aviel Hadad, 30, who was also an Israeli citizen working as a goldsmith in the local market, and Ben Hadad, 42, who lived in France and came in order to celebrate the festivities
  • Does this source say that they were of Tunisian descent?
• [17] Reuters – Close paraphrasing: he did not explicitly mention the targeting of the Jewish community or antisemitism. He also refrained from labeling the incident as terrorism, a term he has used previously to describe the actions of political opponents since assuming significant powers in 2021 versus He made no reference to the shooter's targeting of the Jewish community or to antisemitism and did not call the shooting terrorism, a term he has sometimes used to describe the work of his political opponents since he seized most powers in 2021.
• [24] AP News – Good.

Spot checks generally should not produce issues this significant. It would be easily fixable if it was just a few minor issues, but the fact that they're coming up this often suggests that these are problems that exist with most of the sources throughout the article. Articles with significant original research, close paraphrasing, or text-source integrity issues can't pass at GA without significant reworking.

Broad in its coverage

Good articles are expected to reasonably cover every major aspect of a topic. In this case, that would be the context before the event, the event itself and the days surrounding it, and the long term aftermath of the event. There's plenty of before and during here, but practically no coverage of what happened after the event. It cuts off just a few days after the event occurred. What effects did this cause? What were the legal, political, and societal repercussions? Normally an article like this would be expected to cover the aftermath over the following weeks, months, or years. This article is so recent that years isn't possible, so I'd expect significant coverage over the following weeks or months.

Conversely, good articles cannot go into excessive detail. The "international reactions" section here goes beyond encyclopedic coverage of the topic. There seem to be some indiscriminately collected quotes from figures who commented on it. Any information that isn't significant to the overall event should be removed, including anything that amounts purely to condolences, condemnations, or tributes.

Neutral

No ideas are given undue weight, and the article does not use a positive or negative tone.

Stable

No recent disputes.

Illustrated

Both images are relevant, are licensed under Creative Commons, and have suitable captions.