Talk:Entebbe raid/GA1

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

Comments

 * At the moment the article needs more citations. Tags added
 * ✅ Added references to all facts.  Lourie Pieterse  17:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a list of Reference sources at the bottom of the article but they don't seem to have been used.
 * ✅ Improved section.  Lourie Pieterse  17:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The nationalities info box spoils the flow of the article and may be better added at the end or change it to prose.
 * ✅ Created nationalities section.  Lourie Pieterse  17:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Ynhockey
The article has developed well, but I have two main concerns:
 * 1) It appears that no academic book sources were used for the article, even though numerous books have been written about the subject, as evidenced by the "Further reading" section (probably just as many in Hebrew). While this might not be a GA requirement, it would make the article much more serious if book sources were used, and would make it eligible for A-class and later FA.
 * 2) The ordering of the sections is problematic; the background section appears to actually consist of numerous events, which are not chronologically correct within the article as it stands now. In general, the background section should go first (before "Hijack"), but some current parts of it should probably be in the other sections.

—Ynhockey (Talk) 09:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Here are some issues that I see with the article currently:


 * Lead too short – with an article this size, three full paragraphs is strongly recommended. Please add a third paragraph.
 * ✅ I've added another paragraph and referenced the facts in it.  Lourie Pieterse  08:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Passive voice – there is quite a bit of passive voice throughout the article (in particular, the lead). Try to change as much of that as possible to active voice.
 * "Operational planning" subsections – the "Ground task force" section layout is unnecessary; that is, there are better ways to organize that section than using L3 headings for each portion. It basically borks up the article's layout and makes the article harder to read. My suggestion is to either make it all prose or, as an alternative, use a bulleted list accompanied with prose.
 * ✅ Replaced L3 headings with bullets.  Lourie Pieterse  16:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Section too short – the "Claim of Israeli involvement" section is awfully short to have its own section. Is there a possibility that this can be integrated into another existing section?
 * ✅ Moved section into another section.  Lourie Pieterse  15:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Verifiability –
 * This has become an open wound in the close-knit Sayeret Matkal family. → this needs to be sourced or removed alternatively.
 * ✅ Removed statement.  Lourie Pieterse  15:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Israeli ground task force numbered approximately 100 personnel, and comprised the following: ... → include the source where everything following this comes from (only one is needed where the fact tag is at)
 * ✅ Removed statement.  Lourie Pieterse  15:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that sentence should stay in there as it introduces what the task force does. What I meant was to provide a source that mentions the organization of the task force as you have stated in the section. (That is, is there verifiability with the bulleted points? That needs to be shown.) MuZemike 17:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a source for that statement, that's why I've removed it. So I should remove the complete list if I couldn't find another source?  Lourie Pieterse  19:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't then it probably should be removed until one is found that describes the organization of the task force. I'm surprised there is not one present, though, from reading the sources given already. MuZemike 19:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Found suitable source, and added statement again.  Lourie Pieterse  09:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also (now that I think about it), is there a more specific source (like their website, a copy of their manifest, etc.) from Air France that verifies the nationalities of the people? Also, one of your notes say that these figures vary according to conflicting sources. You may need to disambiguate in that table the differences in the figures (that is, note the difference(s) between the Air France figures and the New York Times figures). MuZemike 19:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Per this edit here, I don't think that last sentence added in the Nationalities section is necessary. At the least, it doesn't belong in that section. Either reword and move to a more appropriate section or remove entirely. MuZemike 17:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Last edit from new user. Makes changes and notified him.  Lourie Pieterse  19:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Other issues that I will note here (but will not gig as far as the GAN is concerned):


 * Citations in the lead – unnecessary per WP:LEAD provided the same information is mentioned in the main body of the article and provided it is not a quote from a person.
 * ✅  Lourie Pieterse  17:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Emdashes – remember that there are not supposed to be spaces to the left or right of emdashes.
 * Non-breaking spaces for measurements/time' – for stuff like time(such as, between the time and the "a.m." or "p.m."), non-breaking spaces are needed.
 * Captions – if the caption is a sentence fragment, then no end punctuation is to be used. Otherwise, it must be used.
 * Consistency in citations – a lot of the citations are consistent in usage. I recommend using the series of citation templates as all of them include full stops at the end.
 * Alt text for all images – one of the new WP:FAC requirements over there is that alt text be included in every image. See WP:ALT for guidelines and details.
 * Full paragraphs – paragraphs that are too short and choppy impair readability. In many cases (as I have done already in the article), paragraphs can be combined to make fuller, more readable paragraphs. It also makes the writing look more professional. Focus on fuller paragraphs.
 * Consistent length in sections – on the same line of thought as above, try if possible (sometimes this is not possible) to keep the lengths of all sections consistent. Sections consisting of a single paragraph are normally unnecessary, chops up the TOC, and can also impair readability (see GAN concern above).
 * Expansion of coverage – after reading some of the sources given, there is some room for expansion of coverage of the operation. While the current amount of coverage is sufficient to pass for GA standing in this aspect, more stuff should be included that isn't already in the given sources as this approaches FA in order to satisfy the comprehensiveness requirement.

Otherwise, the images are properly licensed; the Amin image has a proper fair-use rationale. The article is written in NPOV and has no recent significant edit-warring or content disputes. What needs to be addressed are whatever is in the first set of bullet points above. I will place this GAN on hold for about a week pending improvements to the article. MuZemike 23:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Passed. Any other issues would only serve as nitpickery as far as GA is concerned. Please try to follow my other suggestions above as this article further approaches A-Class and/or FA. Nice job. MuZemike 19:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)