Talk:Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing/GA2

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

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 18:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Tick list
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments

 * Since this is the second GA nomination, all the issues raised in the first GA nomination need to be addressed. They are listed at Talk:Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing/GA1.  I'll look at them and see if they have been properly taken care of. --Noleander (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The footnotes section contains several dead external links. All the footnotes   need to be tested and make sure they are still valid.  If the link is dead, remove the URL link ... it is okay to keep the textual citation of the original newspaper article (or whatever it was), but not a blue link to a non-existent URL. --Noleander (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead contains no mention of who carried out the attack ... even if there was no conclusion, some suspects should be identified in the lead. --Noleander (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The "reactions" tables at the bottom of the article are a bit overwhelming. If they are just quoting expressions of sympathy, that is really not encyclopedic.   The tables should be trimmed down (or removed?) somehow.   For example, see the article 2008 Mumbai attacks which has no such table. --Noleander (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * However, I see that the Mumbai attacks do have the reactions in another article: Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks ... so I suppose that is a good precedent to keep the "reactions" in this article. --Noleander (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Noleander (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Several of the issues from the first GA (GA1) still apply. For example, the Lead is supposed to summarize the entire article, but it does not.  Also, the narrative of the article should be more of a chronological flow:  each section should follow (logically, somehow) from the prior section (if possible). --Noleander (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If possible, please improve the article as you can. I did all the best efforts here. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am improving the article very well and removing dead links if the page does not exist or I will use an archive website and cite the refrences. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. As you fix the individual "Comments" listed above, put a "done" template under each one, like this done.   That will display a green check mark ✅ indicating that you fixed the issue in the Comment.  --Noleander (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

✅ - The article has copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales. I have uploaded a non-free image here, but not in Commons. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We have one step left, I will try to reformat the paragraph as soon as possible. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Several items above still need work - Katarighe: above you wrote "If possible, please improve the article as you can. I did all the best efforts here".  I'm a bit busy now, so I won't have any time to work on the article, beyond reviewing it.  There are several items still to be done, for instance several of the bulleted items above still need work (for example, the 3rd bullet "The lead contains no mention of who carried out the attack " ).   If you do not have time to work on the article any more, and if there are no other editors participating,   then we may have to cancel  the GA nomination process, and try again at a future date.   Does that make sense?  --Noleander (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will try to do so. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, it is getting better.  Let me take another look and see if I can find any other tasks that have to be done. --Noleander (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Attack" section needs better start.  The first section after the lead is "Attack".  That should strart new/fresh, as if the reader has not read the lead.   So the first few sentences of Attack need to give a good statement of what happened.  For example:  "On March 6, 1993, a truck containg explosives was driven into the entryway of the Isl Maririot hotel, and exploded, killing XX people".   After that first sentence, then go on to give details of the attack. --Noleander (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article looks good and cleared format. I think you can review it one more time before final submission. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you address the "Attack" issue mentioned immediately above? --Noleander (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will do so, and I will address it immediately. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I already addressed the "attack" issue on the first page. Everything seem to look fine. You can review it again Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Attack section still needs work. It should start from before the attack, because it must be written as if the Lead section did not exist.  After the lead, the article must start at the beginning.  --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What sentence is it and what is the example? I will try to work on these. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the beginning of the Attack section where it starts "The blast caused a natural gas leak that set the top floor of the five-story, 258-room hotel on fire, police said. The massive explosion was heard 15 kilometres away...".   That assumes the reader already knows about the attack.  That section must begin with the assumption that the reader knows nothing about the attack (as if the Lead section did not exist).  So  the Attack section must begin by explaining when and where the attack happened (like the lead), and AFTER that, it can talk about "the blast caused ...". --Noleander (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you said the instructions, I already did and explained about the attack on the beggining of the article. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The part of the article before "Attack" section is called the "Lead".  When you write the rest of the article after the Lead, you must pretend that the Lead does not exist.  So all the stuff AFTER the lead must be self-contained, that is, it must tell the whole story.  Therefore, the Attack section must start over and explain all the facts about the attack, EVEN IF ALREADY IN THE LEAD.   For example, the Attacks section must have information such as:  " night of 20 September 2008, when a dump truck filled with explosives detonated in front of the Marriott Hotel in the Pakistani capital Islamabad, killing at least 54 people, injuring at least 266 and leaving a 60 ft (20 m) wide, 20 ft (6 m) deep crater outside the hotel..." and any other background information. --Noleander (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have improved the attack section. Is there anything else to be corrected? Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Attack section still does not meet the requirements I explain above (" the Attacks section must have information such as: " ...). --Noleander (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Footnotes need to be validated. Footnote #73 is no longer working.  It is .  All the external links in the footnotes need to be verified that they are correct and working.  If not working, they need to be replaced with a different source (or, if no source exists:  eliminate the material the footnote is supporting). --Noleander (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Would newspapers and other resources work to verify in the footnotes? I'm trying to fix them Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, newspapers can be acceptable for footnotes. See WP:Reliable sources for a full explanation of what sources (books, newspapers, web sites, etc) can be used.  See also WP:Citing sources for an explanation of how to create and format footnotes.  If you cannot find a "reliable source" to replace the broken/missing footnotes, the material must be removed from the article.  --Noleander (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I set the GA nomination status to "Failed". I think the article is very close, but there are still several outstanding issues, and the progress forward seems to be slow and sporadic. I recommend that editors continue to work on the article, particularly focusing on the open issues listed above. And after all those are fixed, submit it for GA again. --Noleander (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)