Talk:September 11 attacks/GA3

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

Reviewer:  JoeGazz  ♂ 18:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick Fail Criteria
✅ I'm going to skip my normal template and do this a different way. This article was just failed at Talk:September 11 attacks/GA2 not even two weeks ago and you are already nominating it again? That's bold but I will go ahead with the checks but in a different manner. I am going to check first to see if what was of concern in the previous GA nomination was addressed and fixed. I will make a list of that below in a subsection.

Joe's Quick Fail Criteria
This section is what I call Joe's Quick Fail Criteria, something where you get 2 days to fix what is addressed specifically from the old GA Review that is still of a concern. This article, like it was said is a WP:IAR case, so that is a little out of my comfort zone so I will ask other opinions along the way. Let's begin. Please fix the errors above, if they are not fixed by July 20, 2011 at 19:30:00 the article will be failed. Please allow me to note that I am going to be looking in to the Good article criteria, MOS, and my personal opinions of what a good article needs to have. I will be very tough on my good article reviews because I will not put my name on something that is less than quality.  JoeGazz  ♂ 19:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I still see that you use 9/11 in the lead. That is an issue, it needs to be reworded as "nine-eleven" or something similar, that goes without saying from this point forward.
 * I see that you still are bordering on a maximal length for the article, it is really quite long in my opinion. The article needs cutting of unnecessary details and possibly making some new articles to cut out the lengthiness in this one.
 * The lead is of concern here, it is not yet summing up everything, please include some motive information in the lead while cutting unnecessary details.
 * If "Nearly 3000" people died in the event, shouldn't the numbers add up? You have 2753 people, 343 firefighters, 60 police, and 8 private authority. Then you have something about 184 more people. These numbers don't add up, they add up to more than 3000, they add to 3348. This should be fixed or if the firefighters and police were included in the death toll, make that clearer.
 * No offense, but judging by your statement "you get 2 days to fix what is addressed specifically from the old GA Review that is still of a concern", it doesn't appear as if you read the previous GA review or its discussion very carefully.
 * The previous GA review did not ask us to not spell it "9/11". Instead, their concern was about pronunciation.  This was addressed by adding a footnote.  In any case, "9/11" is the common spelling in English.  See, for example, The 9/11 Commission Report.  I could be mistaken, but I don't believe that this should be changed.
 * The previous GA review asked that 2K be trimmed from the article. We trimmed it 5K.  It's currently at 51K.  We can trim an additional 1K if necessary although it's unfair for you to say that we did not address the previous GA concern when we actually did more than they asked.
 * Good (but new) point.
 * Again, you are mistaken. This was not included in the previous GA review.  If it had, we would have explained to the GA reviewer that firefighters, policemen, etc. are people, too.  In any case, I think it's fairly clear, "'Among the 2,753 victims who died in the attacks on the World Trade Center were 343 firefighters and 60 police officers from New York City and the Port Authority, and 8 private emergency medical technicians and paramedics."
 * Actually, now that I think about it, you've already made several mistakes. I think I'd rather resubmit this to get a better GA reviewer.   Thanks for your time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ignore your last point, the clarification on the number system was indeed helpful and cleared it up. The 9/11 pronunciation issue being documented as proper English by a government website is acceptable. I'm trying to read a lengthy article, and 2 old GA reviews that were organized differently than mine, that's the concern here. Getting into my main points will be much easier to understand. I apologize to you on the aspect that these were fixed and on my part were a mistake, although I do have more concerns that need to be addressed of my own. On a side note, you cannot resubmit the article for GA review until this one is closed, and I fully intend on getting this article to GA status just like you, that's why I am going to be critical of it. I will also be asking for a 2O in the end to make sure that there is not a 4th GA nomination that has to go through. I don't mean for that to sound snappy in any way, I just want you to know that reading those other GA Reviews were different format than this one, so moving onto my new comments that I notice simply by myself without consideration from previous GAs, I hope to continue to review this article to a higher standard which is acceptable to you.  JoeGazz  ♂ 01:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I have more free time to edit Wikipedia on weekends than weekdays. Also, I'm having a root canal today, so it might be a couple days before you hear back from me.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's no problem at all, I again want to apologize for the boldness that came across and the mistakes above. Knowing your schedule here, if I come across something that is simple like a simple un-debatable grammar fix, I'll just fix it but I will leave more serious things, like lead rewrite (the lead is basically okay now, just an example) to you because I am not sure how you want it formatted and I'm not a September 11 expert. Also, one last thing, per knowing your schedule, I will also extend any hold times on the article that I may place like I usually place a 7 day hold, well I will place a 14 day hold in this case. Sound good?  JoeGazz  ♂ 13:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. It looks like other editors have resolved the above mentioned issues.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Main Review
Well, I am quite surprised with the dedication of all of the other editors who have worked on this article, it certainly has come a long way and I am impressed to say that I have found minimal errors that need fixing and hope that these can be debated, fixed, and the article passes this GA nomination. Personally, that is all I see off the first check, I am going to check it over again later, but if you could please respond to these or fix them, that would be great! I believe August 2, 2011 is when these should be fixed by. Please don't hesitate to ask more questions and I will do another check later and post anymore findings here.  JoeGazz  ♂ 15:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This was mentioned in the beginning, it's a new issue, can you maybe add motive to the lead? Something about "why?" will be helpful if someone is reading just the lead and that is a likely question to come into their head.
 * The section "Hate Crimes" seems to have 2 short paragraphs which is against the MOS, can we possibly merge them somehow? If they are completely different things, can we expand those sections then? (This isn't a big deal, it just makes me want to go on reading, so the references may provide more info)
 * Comment - I've been busy and reading through this again but slowly, I am 99.9% sure this will pass I just need another day or two to make the decision.  JoeGazz  ♂ 23:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Concluding Comments
✅ I'm going to wait for the discussion below regarding a "See Also" link to finish up so there is no active discussion when I close this.  JoeGazz  ♂ 19:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing Comment- I've decided to pass this article, in the beginning I admit, it did look like it may fail, but with the work, discussion, and the patience of the editors who have worked so hard on this article. It is my pleasure and honor to pass this article to Good Article Status. I wish you all the best!  JoeGazz  ♂ 01:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to un-sandwich some of the text in the first section -  as per  our MOS:IMAGES  on this - Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between a left-side image and an infobox.Moxy (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * JoeGazz: Thank you very much for all your help with this article. Good luck and happy editing! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your support. I wish I had been more active in the process, but I am extremely proud of the work the editors here have put in. We have a long road ahead of us, but this is a shining start. --Tarage (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Other Users

 * All users who are not the named reviewer above are welcome to leave comments below for said reviewer to take into consideration when making his/her decision.

(commenting on this review without reading the article in question) Would it be possible to get a more thorough (point specific) review. Reading over this I am not sure that you have stated what the problems are or aren't clearly to the editors involved. Are you saying that only the lead needs to be expanded as of now - thus all the other concerns have been address? If so moving on should be easy?Moxy (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a short clarification to make sure the reviewer is clear on the article's recent history. This article was a GA from 2008 to 2010, but was reassessed and delisted. All points in the reassessment were subsequently fixed before relisting the article for GA. All the points in the previous reviewer's list of problems that he thought made the article fail GA were fixed. In addition, most of the points in an unsuccessful FA review in 2008 have also been addressed. If the current reviewer wishes to point out any deficiencies in the article - above and beyond the extensive good faith corrections that have already been made in response to previous reviews - it would be very helpful of them to be specific about exactly what needs fixing and exactly why, and to allow editors a reasonable amount of time to make the requested changes. Shirt  waist &#9742;  07:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer Comment: Yes, I see that the other concerns in the previous reviews have been addressed and thank you for telling me about the delisting, can you please link me to that reassessment for reference only? In the "Main Review" section I will be pointing out new points of concern to me and always explain why they need to be fixed. The standard time I place an article on hold for is 7 days, however, in this case, I am going to place it on hold for 14 days if any remaining issues stand to allow the nominator, along with other editors more than a substantial amount of time to fix the article and address the concerns. The concerns before were from old GA reviews which have been addressed and should be disregarded from this point forward.  JoeGazz  ♂ 15:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with the GA process, but is this articles (or any other articles) GA fate in the hands of a single editor? RxS (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes its in the hands of ONE reviewer.Moxy (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is in the hands of one reviewer to make the decision, BUT, the reviewer can request second opinion and then technically the article was reviewed by 2 people. Featured articles have to be consensus building.  JoeGazz  ♂ 20:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The GA reassess from June 2010 was transcluded to the talk page here. As you can see, all problems listed in the reassess were fixed. The FA review fixes are here. Shirt  waist &#9742;  21:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I acknowledge that those were fixed. Thank you.  JoeGazz  ♂ 13:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe this article would be incomplete if it does not include a link to the related article about conspiracy theories. I base my believe on the notion that the conspiracy theories are a mayor component of Popular Culture aftermath of the event. Books are written about truther culture and comedians use the subject in their work. This is general knowledge for which I hope I won't be required references. I do not believe mentioning the conpiracy article in the prose is indipensable. I believe a link will suffice.Stapler80 (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been heavily debated and the consensus is no. --Tarage (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a strange consensus to have reached... no mention of a subsequent relevant aspect of the event at all? I'm notthe reviewer, but given the profile of the "truther" movement then lack of even a mention would probably be a fail (for weight/npov). I mean; it's not even in the 9/11 nav template, which seems to be taking WP:FRINGE to a worrying degree. --Errant (chat!) 16:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We discussed the issue for months and it was the subject of two RfCs. At the end of the day, consensus was against including CTs in the article.  As for the template, that's a separate article (which I don't edit).  I am aware, however, that editors of the template discussed it and consensus was also against inclusion.  In any case, that template is a separate article and I don't think its within the scope of this review. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have much time for the 9/11 conspiracies. However, to knowingly and consentially remove any mention of them (i.e. not even as a see also), is to use consensus as a justification for POV. Distasteful as many of us may find it, 9/11 conspiracy theories is a significant part of the 9/11 topic. Consider the topic as a tree, with this article as the trunk. If an article exists, it should be accessible from the trunk, unless a strong case can be made that it is a branch of a bigger branch. —WFC— TFL notices 17:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're free to search the talk page archives to see why consensus was against inclusion. But briefly, one of the main arguments was WP:ONEWAY.  There were few, if any, reliable sources about 9/11 that also included coverage of CT in a serious and prominent way.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that the article should cover them, because as you say, they are not prominently covered by sources which go into detail on the event itself. But a link to the article should be provided somewhere, because it is a relevant and reasonably broad sub-topic with no other obvious parent. —WFC— TFL notices 18:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

WFC, the obvious parent article for 9/11 conspiracy theories is Conspiracy theory. It's not self-evident that conspiracy theories claiming to explain 9/11 really have anything to do with 9/11. You're welcome to familiarize yourself with the archives and see how we got where we are. But after two recent RfCs, I can't see taking this up again so soon. Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviewer Comment - I've reviewed the archives as well as the RfCs that were brought up and there is strong evidence that consensus is to not include the link to the Conspiracy theories article and so this issue that was brought up will not influence my decision on probably passing this article. You're free to debate this more, but I am going to disregard this little point here. Thank you for bringing it up though.  JoeGazz  ♂ 20:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is a erroneous factual implication in Attack where it is written "All aircraft within the continental U.S. were grounded, and aircraft already in flight were told to land immediately. All international civilian aircraft were either turned back or redirected to airports in Canada or Mexico, and all international flights were banned from landing on U.S. soil for three days.[32]" This grounding was sustained for most US flights, but I believe exceptions were quickly made to fly friendly Saudi Arabian diplomats and family members out of the US. This is certainly historically relevant since a majority of the hijackers were from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdteague (talk • contribs) 04:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)