Talk:Iran–Contra affair/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Iran-Contra affair/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am still reviewing this article, but I do notice one issue that should be fixed. Many citations to web pages are missing the "|accessdate=" field. This is highly recommended, so that if/when the URL is no longer valid the content can be more easily retrieved from a web archiving service.Dave (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will go through those that don't have an |accessdate= parameter and add one, provided the citation is reliable. Happyme22 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added in the parameter on all citations lacking it, as all were indeed reliable and beneficial to the article. Happyme22 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):

Major Issues: There is a sentence tagged with. This must be addressed before the article can reach GA status.
 * ✅ I've removed the uncited statements per WP:V because I cannot find citations for them. Happyme22 (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There are two statements that appear to be WP:OR and must be corrected before this article can pass:
 * "Reagan was deeply committed to securing the release of the hostages; it was this compassion that motivated his support for the arms initiatives." If I understand the talk page correctly this is a quote from Reagan's bio. So how about, In his biography Reagan stated that...? That makes it clear why the words "deeply committed" and "compassion" are used. Words like this must be attributed or cited for use in an encyclopedia article.
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This claim must be sourced or removed: The "Teflon President", as Reagan was nicknamed by critics," The word teflon does not appear in the source listed at the end of the sentence, making this statement misleading.
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The linkchecker used for GA and FA reviews is questioning 4 links, however from a manual check these appear ok. You may wish to fix the ones that the linkchecker is complaining redirect to a different website, just so you don't get dinged for this again if you want to take this article to WP:FAC


 * I am not familiar with these sources, and am unsure or doubt about their suitability. Please explain the appropriateness of these sources:
 * http://www.espionageinfo.com/Int-Ke/Iran-Contra-Affair.html No site credentials are given besides Copyright © 2007 - Advameg Inc. Who is Advameg inc?
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * http://members.aol.com/megxyz/megan.html - This appears to be a personal website and if so is not be acceptable as a source. Even if its not a self published source, by its own admission it is a transcript of a high school newspaper. Not exactly a scholarly reviewed journal.
 * ✅ Nice catch! Happyme22 (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.sandford.org/gandercrash/investigations/majority_report/html/_i.shtml This appears to be a Self Published Source as the website is sanford.org and the publisher is listed as copyright Jamie Sanford. However, this may be a copy of a government record. If so, this should be explained and it should be noted how it can be established this is an accurate transcription of the government record. I would advise checking the website for the Canadian Government Agency that supposedly wrote this document and seeing if we can't use the primary source.
 * ✅ My searches cannot seem to find the primary Canadian document. So I've replaced the source. Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.crisispapers.org/guests/hucul.htm - No credentials listed on site, possibly WP:SPS
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1889.html - No credentials listed on site.
 * Well at the 'about' page of the website it says it is a work of Online Highways, which appears to be a travel guide organization. Happyme22 (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0609-29.htm - This one is unacceptable. This website claims to be republishing a Guardian/UK article (a copyright violation), while linking back to the original. Why not just use the original, it's available on the web also.
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Citation 61 needs publisher and author details listed
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Vern, Asleson is listed as a source, yet no inline citations refer to this name. Same for Cockburn, Alexander and Jeffrey St. Clair and several others.|}}


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Friendly Suggestions
These are not required for GA status, but are friendly observations. Some of these are minor violations of the WP:MOS. Though individually these are minor, collectively they add up to the point that some of these must be addressed for me to vote to pass the article:


 * There are several instances where 2 wikilinked terms are placed next to each other throughout the article. Though not banned in the MOS this is discouraged as it can appear to the reader as a single wikilinked term. I fixed a few, but will leave the rest for you. As an example Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres and anti-communist rebel. Suggest re-wording the sentences so the linked terms are not next to each other or just de-link them. In the case of anti-communist rebel, just delink rebel. The article on Contra's defines what they are without the need for the word rebel anyways. In the case of a government official and their title, the article for the government official should have their title in the lead paragraph.
 * The citations are not consistent in listing of authors. Some are Lastname, Firstname others are Firstname Lastname. Citation 58, 63 are examples of two that are reversed.
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Hostage taking in the Middle East did not end there, however." This sentence is rough, how about "This was not the end of hostage taking in the Middle East"?
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Similarly this statement is rough: Reagan allowed McFarlane to meet with the Israeli intermediaries because, according to him, establishing relations with a strategically located country, thus preventing the Soviet Union from doing the same, was a beneficial move.
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "and a portion of the proceeds would go to Contras, or Nicaraguan guerilla fighters opposed to communism, at a markup" should have some wiki-links. This is the first mention of the words Contra and Nicaragua outside of the lead.
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The acronym TOW is first explained on the 3rd instance (in the "First arms" section). This should be moved up. Acronyms should be explained in the 1st instance.
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * but also legislation passed by Congress, known as the Boland Amendment. This is the 2nd mention of the Boland Amendment in the "The affair" section. The explanation and wikilink is not necessary. Important terms should be explained or wikilinked on the 1st mention of each major section.
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * involved in Iran and Contra operations. Contra should be wikilinked. This is the first mention of these terms in the "Discovery and Scandal" section.
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * wikilink first instance of "Freedom of Information Act".
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO There is overlinking on the dates. Though not stated in the MOS, in my opinion only complete dates should be wikilinked. The last paragraph in the "Discovery and scandal" is especially overlinked IMO. The dates are also inconsistent and should use a common format. Example of one date mention that does not match the other is under "Convictions, pardons and reinstatements" under Charles E. Allen, where August 2005 is not wikilinked or set apart with commons, where similar date mentions in other sections are.
 * I presume you are reffering to the 'November 21, 22, or 24' in the 'Discovery and scandal' section. And normally I would agree with you, however in the paragraph directly preceding it, a phrase reads, 'November 21 and November 25, 1985'. It would be odd to wikilink only November 25 because it has a '1985' attached to it. Happyme22 (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the Discovery and Scandal section the acronym CIA as the Central Intelligence Agency is explained in the 2nd instance, not the first. Also delete the wikilink for the 2nd instance.
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * De wikilink Nicaragua in the last sentence of Discovery and scandal. This is about the 15th mention of Nicaragua in the article. If somebody hasn't figured out what Nicargua is by this point in the article, there's trouble afoot =-)
 * ✅ haha! Happyme22 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First arms sale - this section is too short. Suggest merging with the "Arms transaction" section above.
 * (in his autobiography, An American Life, Reagan does acknowledge authorizing the shipments to Israel[47]) - The Parenthesis are not necessary, this is an important statement, not a footnote or clarification.
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some wordy or redundant sentences that could be shortened. The best example of this is "The report published by the Tower Commission, known as the Tower Commission Report, "
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Run-on sentence in the Tower Commission section: "National Security Council staff;[1] it heavily criticized Reagan" Break into two, "staff. The report heavily criticized Reagan"
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In the Aftermath section Ash Wednesday is mentioned, Why? Was this co-incidental or significant? If Reagan intentionally chose Ash Wednesday to make his speech, the reason should be noted. If it was co-incidental, this should be removed.
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Convictions, pardons, and reinstatements" section is in bad shape and should be pruned. Here are the ones I caught, there may be more:
 * Both 1st and 2nd mentions of George H.W. Bush are wikilinked. U.S. President title is attached on the 2nd mention, not 1st. Also, no need to wikilink U.S. President. If they don't know they'll figure it out when they click the link to George Bush =-)
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Casper Weinburger is fully spelled out on the 2nd mention and abbreviated on the 1st mention, should be reversed.
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st and 2nd mention of Elliot Abrams is wikilinked in Aftermath section
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1st and 2nd mention of felony is wikilinked in the Aftermath section. I don't think this term needs linking on even a first mention.
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 2nd mention, but not 1st mention, of some crimes are wikilinked, such as obstruction of justice.
 * ✅ Happyme22 (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * August 2005 is not in the same format as other dates mentioned in the article.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by this one. The reason why it is not wikilinked is because it does nto have a specific day in the month of August. Happyme22 (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The citation used for Charles E. Allen is not consistent with other citations or compliant with WP:MOS.
 * ✅ I have removed the mention entirely because the source was unverifiable. Happyme22 (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is a well written article. I would like to see this reach GA. Please fix these and advise when you are ready for another look. Dave (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very, very much for such a thorough review! I will begin working on these items in the upcoming days. Happyme22 (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, it was an interesting read. I applaud you for trying to get a controversial topic to GA. I do contribute to controversial articles, but my GA and FA nominations are mostly road articles, cause I'm chicken to try it with a controversial article =-) Dave (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I think I have completed the list of required tasks and friendly suggestions. I have either marked the item with a checkmark, signifying its completion, or I have commented on it. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Pass GA
With the above mentioned fixes, I believe this article now meets the GA criteria. I still have some copyediting concerns, but they are minor. For example, is Special Review Board a proper noun? Also there are some wordy sentences, IMO. However as that is a personal preference. All sourcing issues have been addressed, I accept the explanation about U.S. History.com. That appears to be sufficient to not be a self published source. I also accept your explanation about dates, not my style but I accept.

With that I congratulate the contributors of this article on a job well done. I do appreciate how difficult it is to keep a quality article on such a controversial topic, and you should be proud. I will promote the article. Dave (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well none of this could have been possible if it were not for your thorough GA review. So thank you, Dave. Happyme22 (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)