Talk:September 11 attacks/GA2

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I will start to review this article in the next few days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While waiting for my comments, please address the following:
 * The dablink checker to the right shows 3 issues
 * The external link checker to the right shows one dead link
 * There is at least one entirely uncited paragraph. Every paragraph in this article needs at least one inline citation. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The link to 911 (disambiguation) is OK. It's part of the text that says, ""9/11" redirects here. For the date, see September 11 or November 9. For other uses, see 911 (disambiguation).".
 * As for the Algiers bombings disambiguation link, I cannot find it. The text "Algiers" does not appear anywhere in the article.  Does anyone know what's going on here?
 * The dead link is a false positive. The link works fine every time I've tried it.  I'm not sure why the tool thinks that it's a dead link.
 * At first I was unable to open the link successfully in my firefox browser. Then I opened it in Chrome, MSIE, Safari and Opera. After doing so, I was then able to open it in Firefox as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added cites to the 2 paragraphs missing cites. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Algiers bombing link is coming from Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks which is transcluded in the article. Since both the entries in the dab page were carried out by al-Qaeda I don't think this needs fixing. Hut 8.5 16:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that explains it. How about simply having two seperate links? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:LEAD
 * First thoughts. As I embark on this review, I expect it may be a WP:IAR affair.
 * That being said, at 58159 characters of readable prose the article is on the borderline of what I consider to be maximal length (60KB) so I would expect the LEAD to be bordering on my upper limits as well. Generally, I think about 3000 characters is the max and we are at 3102. I don't want to bean count here, so I will just proceed with that out there.  In the end, I am going to have to get familiar with the prose of the main text and see if the LEAD provides a representative summary.  Let's look back at its overall length towards the end of the review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have one issue with the opening sentence. Is it possible to make it clear that the final alternative means "nine eleven" and not "nine slash eleven".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding article length, as we go through the GA review, I will look for opportunities to trim the length.
 * I can add something saying, "pronounced ". What do you think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What about just adding nine eleven? Would that be inappropriate? I don't know if it is ever written like that. If not would (spoken as nine eleven) be better than the fancy pronunciation?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I follow. Are you suggesting that we replace "9/11" with "nine eleven"?  It's true that's not how it's pronounced, but it is how it is spelled (which is why I suggested adding a pronunciation explanation to the article).  I'm not sure what the best way is to solve this issue.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is what we have now:
 * The September 11 attacks (often referred to, in combination with the attacks' side effects on that day, as September 11, September 11th or 9/11)
 * Here are some alternatives:
 * The September 11 attacks (often referred to, in combination with the attacks' side effects on that day, as September 11, September 11th or 9/11 &mdash; "pronounced ")
 * The September 11 attacks (often referred to, in combination with the attacks' side effects on that day, as September 11, September 11th, 9/11 or nine eleven)
 * The September 11 attacks (often referred to, in combination with the attacks' side effects on that day, as September 11, September 11th or 9/11, which is spoken as nine eleven)
 * The September 11 attacks (often referred to, in combination with the attacks' side effects on that day, as September 11, September 11th or 9/11, which is pronounced nine eleven)
 * The September 11 attacks (often referred to, in combination with the attacks' side effects on that day, as September 11, September 11th or 9/11 &mdash; pronounced nine eleven)
 * Note that in any of the above nine eleven might be better represented as one word nine-eleven. My problem is that when I look at the current alternatives I think an unfamiliar reader might see nine slash eleven or 9/11ths. Such a reader is not likely to really understand the IPAc symbols.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a footnote explaining how to pronounce "9/11". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am confused on the responder death toll. Numbers in that paragraph don't add up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Attacks
 * This is quite an abrupt organization. There needs to be some sort of preamble explaining the motivations of the attackers. People don't just wake up one day and decide to do something like this. There should be a section with a few paragraphs describing the motivation behind the attacks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a section about the motivations of the attackers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The preamble should also explain that the terrorists chose cross country flights because the planes would be more heavily fueled. This is common knowledge but might not be understood by a 10-year or 12-year old who doesn't remember.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a sentence explaining this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I find the attacks section a bit jumbled and confusing. It would be better organized with subsections by attack, IMO.  E.g., in paragraph three phrases like the following should be attributed to specific flights/attacks "Reports indicated that during two of the flights" and "Some passengers were able to make phone calls using the cabin airphone service and mobile phones"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * After taking a closer look at this section, I realized that Flight 93 was being discussed in two different places. I moved it around a bit so the Flight 93 material is together in one spot.  Hopefully, this reduces the jumbling. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the first 85 seconds of the security footage video offers. I would chop off the first minute.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A fair point and one that should be looked at further. However, I don't believe that this is part of the Good article criteria. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Casualties
 * Why don't these numbers match those in the LEAD?
 * The following sentence seems to be a bit garbled: "At least 1,366 people died who were at or above the floors of impact in the North Tower and at least 618 in the South Tower, where evacuation had begun before the second impact." The 618 part seems ungrammatical.
 * I would reorganize this section. Some of the death demographics should be moved earlier.  The emergency worker and buildign employees paragraphs could be 2nd and 3rd. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Damage
 * I would merge the first two paragraphs. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't this section have details about the pentagon and its surroundings? --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Fail As noted at Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/1 this article lacks complete coverage of the topic. It is a very lengthy article and I have already found major holes. The article needs to be rewritten while staying under 60 KB of prose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Have to disagree. WP:GA? does not require "complete" coverage, it calls for "broad coverage", "broad" being defined as: "(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" - which this article clearly satisfies. The length is justified for an article on a subject as complex and significant as the 911 attacks. I also think closing the GAR in just one day, without giving editors time to respond to the items needing attention, is premature and uncalled for. Shirt  waist &#9742;  02:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding article length, it is currently at 162 KB (165,918 / 1024). I will continue to look for opportunities to remove extraneous details and streamline the verbiage.  Removing 2 KB shouldn't be too hard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * TTT only mentioned "readable prose size" as being a possible problem, and that is at about 57kB - which is not in itself a valid criticism of an article on a subject of this magnitude and complexity. The FA article on the Oklahoma City bombing, for example, is 52kB of readable prose, and the 911 attacks have far more depth and complexity than that event. Hell, the FA Changeling (film) article is 56kB readable prose, and it's a movie for godsake! Considering that TTT said "this article lacks complete coverage of the topic", removing things seems the wrong way to go. I still can't figure out what he meant by "major holes" and "The article needs to be rewritten". Shirt  waist &#9742;  05:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay...Tony has helped progress this article as an outside reviewer and I think A Quest for Knoweldge is doing an excellent job so far...getting this article even to GA is a very difficult thing to do, so that in itself will be a huge milestone. I also feel the scope needs to be streamlined some more to jive beter with the title...but again, that is so difficult here where it a huge story to relate and figuring out what sectiosn can be eliminated or trimmed is no easy task. I want to thank Tony the Tiger for taking on this task...and everyone else for already making massive improvements here, especially A Quest for KNowledge.--MONGO 01:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)