Talk:Unit 101/GA1

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

Reviewer: --HistorianBell 03:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am starting the GA level review of this article. --HistorianBell 03:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

GA requirements

 * Well-written:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; Noand
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
 * (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;No and
 * (c) it contains no original research.Yes
 * Broad in its coverage:
 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Noand
 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).No
 * Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.No
 * Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.Yes
 * Illustrated, if possible, by images:Yes
 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; Yesand
 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.YEs(but could be better) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianBell (talk • contribs) 05:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To-Do List
Prose and Manual of Style:
 * There needs to be some tightening of the language. There are some sentences that are very vague and some of questionable grammar. For example: "One of the unit's tactical commanders was Meir Har-Zion, who was later awarded the rank of an officer solely for his conduct in battle."
 * ❌ I will do a clean up as soon as all the information is added.  Lourie Pieterse  19:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are a few more grammar and prose issues:
 * The paragraph on training appears to be an overly close paraphrase of the Morris quote further down. Please rephrase.
 * "Despite from the unit's tactical variation, they were also unique in two ways" - grammatically incorrect (I have no idea what it means), and why is it in bold?
 * "The unit was to comprise of 50 men" - was to be comprised of? was comprised of? (if the former, how many were actually in the unit?)
 * second-to-last paragraph of Background: appears to mix internal and external politics -- politics of the unit's existence within the military, and the political effects of its activities against Israel's enemies. Please separate these discussions, or clarify.
 * there should be a heading marking the creation of the unit; currently buried in the middle of the Background.
 * Palestinian refugee camp: "and opened fire to rescue itself and left behind" - ... to rescue itself, leaving behind ...
 * Qibya: "According to United Nations observers; bullet-riddled bodies ..." - comma, not semicolon
 * Disbandment: Is the terminology "Battalion X" or "X Battalion"; please be consistent.
 * Disbandment: 2nd paragraph repeats earlier material; the irony can be noted without a full repetition.
 * Disbandment: "had turned into a infantry brigade"
 * Disbandment: "the T'zanhanim company formed its own SF unit— the Sayeret T'zanhanim" - ... formed its own SF unit, the S T, ...
 * I'll comment below on the state of this review.  Magic ♪piano 19:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Needs to be cleaned up. There is a lack of consistency in referring to units. 890 Battalion is referred to as Parachutist 890th Battalion and 890 Paratrooper Brigade. Furthermore, there seems to be confusion in the article as to the size of some of the formations (were they battalion, company, or brigade-sized?). Also there appears to be some sentences lifted directly from other places. Yes, they are footnoted, but at that level, it seems that they are quotes.
 * ✅ Improved the consistency.  Lourie Pieterse  08:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a lack of structure to the article. Issues pop up without warning or seem to refer to things that have not been dealt with earlier in the article.
 * ❌ Could you please give some details on this problem? Then I could easily address them.  Lourie Pieterse  18:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the long quote from Ariel Sharon, attributed to be from a book quoted in the article, makes little sense and as used is out of context. Even the article from which it is taken gives more context to it than this does. Its not clear from the article what happened on that raid, what the purpose of the raid was, or what sparked the deaths. Was there a fight with collateral damage to the civillians? Was the raid solely directed at civilian targets? At least of the article's sources indicate that they were after an Egyptian colonel. All that this says is IDF troops were there and people died. Hardly seems to be a NPOV.
 * ✅ Decided to remove the quote.  Lourie Pieterse  16:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * At the end of the article, when talking about Unit 101's disbandment, the article suddenly talks about how there was apparently opposition to the creation of Unit 101 by the T'zanhanim. First, there is very little about the formation of the unit, other than to say Sharon formed it. Second, there is no mention earlier of any opposition, or even debate, about the creation of the unit.
 * ✅ Added information in the background section about the opposition.  Lourie Pieterse  16:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As a side point, to those who do not speak Hebrew, it would have been nice to have a translation, or even a wiki-link to explain what T'zanhanim means.
 * ✅ Added translation.  Lourie Pieterse  16:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable and Neutrality No's:
 * As an initial observation, every paragraph does not have citations for it.
 * ✅ Added enough references to each section.  Lourie Pieterse  17:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some NPOV going on in this. Some of it comes out as saying that the unit regularly went on missions drunk? The sole source for this seems to be a newspaper article from an Arabic weekly written by an Arab politician who seems to have an agenda. I understand that it is hard to get sources on any SF-type unit, especially an Israeli one, but to make statements like that seem to require more backup, rather than just one article written by a politician with an agenda. Furthermore, now having re-read the article, the footnote is inappropriate as it does not discuss those issues at all. The other Al-Ahram article, by Salman Abu Sitta does make this claim, however it is tossed out as true without any verification.
 * ✅ I certainly agrees with your opinion. I've decided to also remove another sentence, which is also only supported by this reference.  Lourie Pieterse  17:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I question the quote from Ben-Gurion to Sharon in the background section. It does not appear in the cited article.
 * ✅ The quote does appear in the cited article.  Lourie Pieterse  17:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that that Morris book is quoted in the article. However, the only quote that makes it into a block quote is not taken directly from the Morris book, but from the Sitta article. This seems to be the wrong way of doing that. If Morris said it, then attribute it properly.
 * ❌ I am not sure what exactly to do here.  Lourie Pieterse  18:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the Morris book. If the quote is correct and in context, use it and cite appropriately. I am leery of citing that language to an article which intended as a critical piece on Sharon (author is not shy about that point). People have been known to misquote or quote out context. Also, it seems to indicate that Morris may have some more information on the unit itself that would be good to include in the article. --HistorianBell 19:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added the correct reference.  Lourie Pieterse  11:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hate to be bear about this, but there is no page number for the reference.--HistorianBell 15:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find more details than this. Maybe we should just remove it then.  Lourie Pieterse  08:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Broad in Coverage:
 * Article seems to dwell more on the situation which gave rise to Unit 101 than the formation, creation, and training of the unit. Furthermore, the article goes into detail of operations that the successor formation undertook. Seems like that information is misplaced as this article is about Unit 101.
 * ❌ Would you suggest I remove this information? I would appreciate comment on this.  Lourie Pieterse  18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I recognize that Unit 101's activities are, to say the least, controversial. While the background is important, I think there needs to be more information about the unit. I'm looking at this from a military history perspective. When an article is about a unit, I want to know who formed it, what it is was composed of, how it was trained, what it used, and etc. That being said, it looks like Morris may have some answers as far information goes. There may also be some other Israeli sources out there. But I think that Morris, at least in a quick review of the available English language bibliography, seems to have done most of the more easily accessible, published works. Also, take a look at the Osprey books. Yes, they're kind of simple, but they do provide some good basics, including what type of person was recruited into this unit. The way this article reads right now, even with some of the changes, is that Unit 101 existed, went on 2 raids, and has been roundly branded as murders and possibly ambushed a journalist (yes over simplification. And I'm not sure what the journalist assault has to do with the unit, even the cite that is provided does not say it was Unit 101 that did this). Right now I think that this article relies way too much on web-only sources. The web provides many nice sources, but I am a little leery where there is a lack of documentation. There are a number of books that have been published in the last twenty years which have questioned the "orthodox" view (including ones by Morris) which question the traditional view put forth. Take a look at some of them. There seems, in doing a Google Scholar search to be number of articles dealing with the period and mentioning Unit 101, take a look at those. May require a trip to the library if you don't want to pay for the online article download, though there are some editors who can apparently get it for you. --HistorianBell 19:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The other day I was looking at books and ran across one you might find helpful for this article. Israel's Reprisal Policy, 1953-1956: The Dynamics of Military Retaliation, by Ze'ev Drory, Zeʼev Derori. There is some discussion as to why Unit 101 was disbanded, as well as some other operations conducted by the unit. If its available to you, might want to consider looking at it. --HistorianBell 15:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is indeed true, because one doesn't really find a lot on the web about this unit. Unfortunately my library is very limited. They don't have any of these books. I even ask them to order it, but they are not interested. I'll look around, but I don't think I would succeed in this.  Lourie Pieterse  08:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This article fails to adequately deal with Unit 101. Most of the background is devoted to the problem of the raids in 1950s. There is little about the training, other than to say it was harsh (in the Morris quote). And that comes late in the article.
 * ✅ Added information to the background section about training.  Lourie Pieterse  18:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What was a non-standard weapon in the context of this article? The claim is made that they used non-standard weapons, but what qualifies as such? Or, conversely, what was a standard weapon for the IDF in that time?
 * ✅ This sentence was removed as discussed above.  Lourie Pieterse  18:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the Osprey book on Israeli Special Forces Units since 1948. Has some discussion on this.--HistorianBell 19:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Was there a unit before that had Unit 101's job that was originally a Palmach unit? The article makes some mention of 3 best units, but the wikilink just takes one to the general article on the Palmach, and this is confusing. Plus, it raises the point of, is it relevant to the history of the unit that this article is supposed to be about?
 * ❌ There is mention of a unit that was operated by the IDF Southern Command. Any ideas of how I could improve it?  Lourie Pieterse  18:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've looked again it this. It seems sufficient to me.  Lourie Pieterse  09:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Image problems:
 * Ok I know its hard to get good images of special forces units. However, in the one image that seems to be most relevant, the Dayan w Kuntila Raid comm.jpg one, the caption does not explain who is in it. It would be helpful to know that the guy second from the left in the back row is actually the former commander of Unit 101 not long after the unit was disbanded and folded into the Paratrooper Brigade. There also appears to be a couple of pictures which could be added that a Google search turns up (since given their age, they would be in public domain by Israeli law).
 * ✅ When one opens the image there is a description of who is in the photo. I would look for further images on Google, but there were previously problems with the images. There was decided to make use of the current one.  Lourie Pieterse  18:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this article would meet a B class review in the state that its in now. I am going to put it on Hold for the moment and see what can be done.--HistorianBell 17:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been a month and both parties stopped. Is there progress on the writing side or does this have to be failed? Wizardman  23:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The person who was the driving force behind the article's GA request informed me that he had an issue which was going to be taking him away from the article and asked for a month to come back and finish it. I put it on hold just before that (frankly until some changes were made by LouriePieterse, I was going to fail it. But since he asked I figured there was no harm in giving time to him. If I don't hear from him at the end of the month, I'll make a decision based on the status of the article then.--HistorianBell 04:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianBell (talk • contribs)
 * That's fine, just checking :) Wizardman  04:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still new to doing reviews and all. So I had to over explain myself. Just put it down to my private insanities. :) --HistorianBell 04:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianBell (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry for keeping you all waiting. I've been very busy in real life, but I am back now. I would start to contribute to the article today. Thanks for you patience! Kind regards,  Lourie Pieterse  15:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that progress is being made, but since this is now the oldest GAN left, I hope that both sides can quickly wrap things up. Wizardman  Help review good articles 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Wizardman. I am waiting for feedback from HistorianBell. As soon as he does that, I would continue with the editing. Thanks for the reminder.  Lourie Pieterse  10:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * HistorianBell has not edited since December 30, 2009. This nomination has gone on too long. Therefore, perhaps this review should be closed as unfinished. You could consider removing the nominators name at GAN so that someone else will review it. Regards,  — mattisse  (Talk) 20:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the article and the review, I think that unless Lourie can address HistorianBell's factual concerns (described in the "Broad in Coverage" section of the review, and apparently not yet addressed), the article should, IMHO, be failed. (Just because you do not have access to the necessary sources to achieve broad enough coverage does not mean you get a pass on GA.)  I've also outlined a number of specific prose-related issues above, but the problem of an apparent lack of relevant facts is somewhat more significant. (I am not familiar with this subject matter, so I am unable to comment on HistorianBell's claims.)  Magic ♪piano 19:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 3rd opinion: recommend immediate fail based on the concerns expressed above. Removing the nominator's name at WP:GAN will not solve anything. It can always be renominated when concerns have been addressed.  As the reviewer has not responded, best to start over. Recommend that anyone considering nominating the article again familiarises themselves with WP:GACR &mdash; Jezhotwells (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's multiple people that believe the article should fail. Aside from all that, I notice bare links in the refs that need to be fixed as well. As a result, I'm failing this article per above. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)