Talk:August 2012 Sinai attack/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Osiris (talk · contribs) 02:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Checklist

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Well structured, and seems to check all the MOS boxes. Lead is an adequate summary. No use of controversial labels for living people. No embedded lists.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Almost all sources are news articles, which is pretty unavoidable, but there is a reasonable diversity in publishers.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I'm obviously still reading through it in detail, but from my cursory reading of the article it's certainly covered everything that needs to be. Whether it includes any extraneous detail is something that I will need to weigh up at the end.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Fair representation of reliable sources. Use of in-text attribution is excellent.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Debates seem resolved. Static material has been moved to another article without compromising the coverage of this one, so content should remain stable from here onwards.
 * 1) 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):
 * I was a little concerned about the accuracy of the license tag on the first image, but it's been proven to me elsewhere so all of the images are fine. I've also added alternative text.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Some preliminary comments
Interesting article. The language is fine, and the coverage is complete. I think moving the material on the ongoing operations to another article was a good decision, and the content of this article should remain stable as a result.

I've only reviewed up to the end of the first section for now, but there's a pressing issue that needs to be dealt with before I go any further. Parts of this first section contain serious close paraphrasing. Most of the section is fine, but there are some paragraphs that I've identified as problematic – the last two paragraphs about warnings prior to the attack, the report from Haaretz, and the bit about Aviv Kochavi. These need to be rephrased or completely rewritten. You might find it easier to integrate the information from these paragraphs into other paragraphs, if that makes sense. After you've done that, check through the rest of the article to see if there are any other parts that might reasonably be considered someone else's work. If you need some other tips on rectifying close paraphrasing, let me know and I'll give you some links. Osiris (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Review

 * Formatting:
 * There are a few references (e.g., 48, 58, 59) using a different date format than the rest of the article. Ref 48 is also using a different name style than the others.


 * Linking:
 * Some wikilinks need to be adjusted. In some instances, a word has been linked in its second or third appearance, rather than its first. There is also a bit of overlinking: al-Qaeda, for example, is linked three times in the same section; other words probably don't need to be linked except only perhaps in the very first instance (like Israel and Egypt).


 * Language:
 * The languge of what I've read so far is fine for a GA. Parts of it read somewhat like a news report would, which could be a reflection of the sources used (when you've read all these news articles on something, you naturally start to write about it using the same style and tone). It's not excessive, though, but something to keep in mind if you wanted to take it further than GA.
 * There are a few expressions and metaphors used; it's better to write plainly when catering for a global audience. An example is "set off alarms". If I find another that bugs me, I'll add it here later.
 * I usually fix minor grammatical issues when I notice them. I hope this is okay. One thing I would recommend you check for yourself is consistent use of serial commas: it's used in some instances (e.g. time, place, target, or type), but not in others (e.g. its Armored, Engineering and Infantry troops).


 * References:
 * All appear to be reliable. There is a lack of diversity in reference medium used, but this is probably unavoidable for this particular item.

Section 1

 * The second paragraph in this section needs restructuring, as it doesn't flow properly. I would suggest something more to the point:
 * These groups have been frequently attacking and bombing gas pipelines running between Egypt and Israel.
 * ...or something similar. If it's important to mention AMPAL, be sure to make it clear what this initialism refers to — link it if possible, and use the expanded name if there is one.


 * The information in this sentence doesn't seem to be verified. The citation at the end of the paragraph only appears to verify the number of attacks, and perhaps contradicts the earlier sentence when it says that "no attackers' identities have been discovered after any after any of the bombings".
 * I suggest replacing ref 23 with ref 25; the citation currently used doesn't seem to verify any deaths, it just says "injuring a number of passengers". I'm also confused about the number of deaths in this paragraph. All three refs (23, 24, 25) report seven Israelis dead including six civilians; the seventh, ref 24 says is a Golani soldier, while ref 25 names an officer of Yamam. If my reading is correct, since both given seven as the death toll, I think it would be better if you either found a different reference or just said seven as well.
 * I think the word borderline has been used incorrectly in the second-to-last paragraph.
 * Some of the capitalisation may need fixing, such as in "Yamam special Unit police officer". Is "Armored, Engineering and Infantry" the name of something, or should these be lowercase?

Osiris (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this. -- Activism  1234  23:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the paragraphs which you said are problematic. Hopefully they are good now.  I am working on the other bullet points now. -- Activism  1234  23:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I went through a few references and changed the format. If there are others I missed, let me know. -- Activism  1234  00:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed some wikilinks that already existed and wikilinked others the first time they appeared (such as Bedouin). Let me know if I missed any. -- Activism  1234  00:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "set off alarms" part. -- Activism  1234  00:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed the serial comma in the IDF division (I actually noticed it while making some other edits before reading this!) I also noticed it in other places, and fixed it there (such as in the August 2011 attack). -- Activism  1234  00:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issue with you fixing grammatical errors when you notice them. -- Activism  1234  00:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the second paragraph in the background section. I hope that it's better.
 * What was meant by the source saying the identities weren't found is that they don't know the names of who did it, but it's clearly militants who would do this (such an attack would make them a militant). I've added two other referenses though that explicitly write "militants" in the headlines, which should make it better. -- Activism  1234  00:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In regards to the number of deaths, I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but perhaps this CNN ref (in the article) will clear it up. Essentially, a minimum of 7 dead were reported in some of the refs used. 1 of the refs mentions a Golani officer was killed, which is true.  The same media outlet, in a different ref, later reported that a special operations police officer was killed as well, which is also true.  In total, as the CNN report shows, 8 were killed. -- Activism  1234  00:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed the word "borderline" to "Russo feared that soldiers at positions on the Egyptian-Israeli border near the Kerem Shalom border crossing would come under attack..." -- Activism  1234  00:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I capitalized all the words in Yamam. I believe that the IDF brigade is one brigade and that's the name for it, as that's how the reference wrote it. -- Activism  1234  00:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah! I understand now. Perhaps adding the CNN citation to the end of that sentence about the number of deaths will avoid confusion in the future. Your rewrites to the smaller paragraphs are excellent. That larger paragraph might need twisting a bit more, but I might have a couple of things to help. You might like to try out Dcoetzee's [//toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/ Duplication Detector], which can be helpful for the future. It might also be helpful to get a fresh pair of eyes to do a copyedit. I've posted a quick rewrite below. If you can use this as a basis and make some amendments of your own, it should be more effective.


 * Over the weekend prior to the attack on the border, various intelligence reports reaching the IDF's Southern Command warned of an impending attack. Specific information regarding the time, target and location of the attack could not be ascertained. The division's commander Maj.-Gen. Tal Russo prepared his troops regardless. Armored, Engineering, and Infantry soldiers were placed on high alert and the Israeli Air Force was deployed in the area as reinforcement. Russo evacuated troops from the Kerem Shalom border crossing, where the militants would later break through, in anticipation of them coming under attack.


 * I will continue the review tomorrow. I was a bit busy with some other things today. Osiris (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me about that Duplication Detector tool!
 * I rewrote the paragraph, using your version as a basis.
 * Take your time, there's no rush.
 * Thanks. -- Activism  1234  16:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Section 2

 * The ordinal 35 will need to be spelled out in full as long as it's kept at the beginning of the sentence. It's a MOS thing.
 * Done. -- Activism  1234  04:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there an error in the distance covered? The article says "100 meters", but the corresponding fact in the source gives "about a kilometer". Can you please clarify?
 * Which source are you referring to? The sentence's reference is found in the next sentence (the reference applies for both sentences) (ref name="Blow by blow"), and it mentions 100 meters. -- Activism  1234  04:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I know this is frustrating, but I really need you to go through the rest of the article and check it for close paraphrasing. Most of this section is okay, but one sentence was well over the line:
 * The article : Israeli troops were alerted to a possible breach of the border just minutes before the attackers crossed the border, following intelligence that an Egyptian border patrol post had been surrounded.
 * The : The forces were alerted to a possible breach of the border minutes before the terrorist vehicle crossed the fence, following intelligence indicating that an Egyptian border patrol post had been surrounded.

Thanks for your patience. Will do more later. Osiris (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, I've rewrote that one, hopefully it's better. I'll go through some other sections, I don't know if I'll have time tonight though as it's late and I'm busy right now, but hopefully in the morning. -- Activism  1234  04:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! -- Activism  1234  04:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey. Let me know when you've finished with this. There's another one right at the beginning of the next section:
 * Israel and Egypt believe that the attack was carried out by fighters from a global jihad network who are receiving assistance from local Bedouins in exchange for money.
 * Israel and Egypt estimate that the attack was carried by terrorists from global jihad, who are receiving assistance from local Bedouins in exchange for money.
 * I know it's frustrating. If you want me to put the review on hold for a while I can. I'll do a quick copyedit for grammar in the meantime. I've also added alternative text for the images, and started marking it off against the criteria. Osiris (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure sorry I didnt' get to it, hopefully I'll get to it today and then I'll just notify you quickly, shouldn't take too long though. I'm not familiar with the GA review though - what's the difference between the gray and green icons you posted above? Thanks. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  15:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, the grey just means I haven't assessed those points yet. Green means it's checked off. Osiris (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I went through some of it now and changed some wording. I also split some of the paragraphs based on who said it or the category of the statement (nothing major), and removed 1/2 a sentence in the Egyptian section that wasn't part of Egypt's reaction. I'll go through the rest later hopefully. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  16:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've recently been going through some passages and changing around the wording a bit. I think that most would've been fine anyway, but always safe to be sure. Didn't go through all of them, but got some done. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  05:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Section 3
I'm having some issues with prose. There's a lot of word repetition, which is corrupting the flow... ("Responsibility for the attack was initially unclear, as no group claimed responsibility.") There are parts where each sentence seems to be constructed in a way that makes it stand out on its own, rather than depending on its paragraph to form a natuarally flowing syntax. As an example, in the section titled "Egypt", each sentence individually makes it implicit that we're reading about the reaction in Egypt ("the Egyptian government", "Egyptian Prime Minister", "Morsi ordered Egyptian security forces"). While it's good to make things clear where there might be confusion, overdoing this will hinder rather than help the reader. Even within certain sentences, there is sometimes a superfluous adjective ("a North Sinai Egyptian security official"), or repetition of what's already been implied ("The Egyptian government indefinitely closed the Rafah border crossing to the Gaza Strip, which is a border crossing between Egypt and Gaza.") Use the advantage of wikilinks to defer unrelated explanations, such as the description of the iftar meal, which results in a lengthy, complex-compound sentence.

If you'd like, I can do a copyedit of the section to formulate the flow a bit better. Would that be okay? The good news is that I didn't find any copyright problems in this section. Osiris (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure that's fine. I'll go through it in the meantime and remove words like "The Egyptian government" because, as you said, that's obvious - it's the name of the section. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  18:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll get started. Osiris (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed some of the stuff you requested (I truly hope you weren't editing at the same time, otherwise you'll have a really bad edit conflict... Sorry if that's the case!) --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  19:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good! No conflicts, I'm too sloooow for that ;) Osiris (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I won't be back until tomorrow night, but feel free to fix up whatever you'd like and continue the review here, and I'll respond when I get back. Thanks! --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  22:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a bit at the end of the section on "Palestinians" that seems as though it's liable to change. Has it changed, or should I tag it as dated information? Osiris (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Egypt's blockade has continued. There were some reports about 6 days ago from some sources that it reopened, but a more recent article I read in a reliable source (can't remember it) said it's still closed.  If it changes though, it shouldn't really affect the stability of the article - just writing "On ___, Egypt reopened the ___..." --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  00:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Took a look on Google. It looks like it might have been reopened on 25 August??? I'll let you do the digging, just wanted to make sure it's not outdated. I was away for the weekend, but hopefully should get this review wrapped up during the week. Osiris (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Break
Okay, I've checked off a few items, but there's no way I can judge some of these things when I'm still finding closely paraphrased content.

Even just reading through casually, there are parts that just sound like someone else's work, like they've come directly from a news article. It's not enough to simply change around the wording, and the problem appears to be extensive. There's no plagiarism, because attribution has been given in the text. But because these are copyrighted sources, the material simply can't be reproduced.

At this point, I'm wondering whether this nomination might fare better being resubmitted after a more thorough look into its issues with copyrights. Collaborative efforts to address the problem using the advice at Close paraphrasing would be the best approach. I'm happy to help where I can and give some advice, or if you'd like some extra eyes there are a number of names of users active in copyright cleanup I can give you. Osiris (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the paraphrasing issue in the extended content section. The only remaining thing after Russia is the reaction of the U.S., so I don't think you'll find much more paraphrasing. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  20:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. But as I said, it's not enough to just substitute some words for others. Once it's in there, close paraphrasing doesn't go away easily, and I saw it in pretty much every paragraph. In such a long article, I don't know whether I've caught them all. But – and I have to be blunt here – it's not up to me to find these things. It shouldn't have been in a good article nomination to begin with. I'm supposed to be reviewing whether the article meets the criteria for good articles, not whether it meets the most basic principles of Wikipedia.

The problem is still in there, when I look for it. It's not going away easily. And since I don't know whether we've got them all, I have to fail this. It needs to be cleaned more thoroughly, preferrably with a collaborative effort and with an eye on the links and advice here.

I really do apologise, because it's quite obvious how much time and effort you've put into this article. Most other thing are fine. But it needs a thorough clean to be copyright compliant. Osiris (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)