Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Khalid al-Mihdhar


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:27, 19 October 2008.

Khalid al-Mihdhar

 * Nominator(s): --Aude (talk) 

With help from User:Sherurcij, I have put extensive work into getting this article about one of the 9/11 hijackers ready for FAC. The article is now fully referenced, with reliable sources, comprehensive, edited for MOS, images tagged, and copyedited to get it up to what I believe are FAC standards. Of course, I welcome review and comments here. --Aude (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did some cleanup of the linking and other issues with wording...will resume this endeavour over the next few days.--MONGO 23:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * http://www.latimes.com/news/specials/911/la-na-plot-1sep01.story (ref #6 is dead)
 * Ref 6 is also formatted oddly.
 * Many of the references appear to be formatted in varying styles. Try to stick to one. For example, why do some contain publication dates, while many others don't?
 * Page range in ref #22 needs an en dash.
 * http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Hijackers_Timeline_OCR.pdf (ref 13) is a wiki, and thus is not reliable.
 * Otherwise sources seem to be fine. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed ref #6 and #22, and looking at the publication dates. For the timeline, the site uses mediawiki but it's only open to the site owner.  The timeline was sent to him from the FBI via FOIA request, as well as to others including historycommons.org, and NEFA Foundation  so it can be corroborated and deemed reliable.  As well, the FBI has been very forthcoming with these documents, and the timeline is one available on request directly from the FBI, if one wants further verification. So, I'm convinced that it is a reliable source. --Aude (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried fixing more references and adding dates. The only ones that are different are two that are to wikisource documents.  I'm not sure how to handle these as citations.  Also, I should note that as a wiki, I know they might not be reliable.  Counterargument in this case is that both wikisource references are alongside another reference, so the wikisource documents are more or less redundant and added information.  If there are other references that I missed or need formatting tweaked, please let me know. I'm not always good at spotting these. --Aude (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, referring to "Ref number X" does nothing for me when it comes time to sort the FAC. A week after the fact, I have no way of knowing if current Ref #6 or Ref # 22 are the same refs referred to when the comment was written, since Wiki articles are dynamic and ref nos. change.  Can y'all please sort for me what is resolved ? On the Wiki timeline concern, why not just link to nefafoundation.org instead of a Wiki?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The only issue with linking to the NEFA Foundation is that they posted their timeline within the past month, whereas I got my copy from 911myths earlier, in February 2008. Though, they are the same documents, so I went ahead and changed the link. As for the refs, #6 was the Los Angeles Times article.  The link was broken, so I de-linked it.  The article is still valid and available from Lexis Nexis and other sources.  Ref #22 was the "Inside 9-11" book by Der Spiegel.  I adjusted the dash, though if Julian wants to check my changes, that is of course fine with me. --Aude (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good. My only concern is with the images which have pixel sizes and with the "

" used above the "Aftermath" section. See if you can do without those. I also prefer not mixing in notes (like refs 1 and 2) with the rest of the citations, see if that can be done in a notes section (like Washington, D.C.) or incorporated into text.--Patrick «» 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi...I was kinda silly to use that break spacing but only did so to keep the next section header from being overrun by the image and its caption. I could have simply moved the image up slightly in its section.--MONGO 01:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried right aligning the image. I know we like to stagger them right and left, but putting the image on the left was causing problems and blank space for me.  Also, I tweaked the notes and made them into references, with use of the "quote" field to add a small note.  I hope this works okay. I don't think it's reasonable to have a notes section separate, for just two notes. I'm open to other ideas. --Aude (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a few dates that might be confusing...maybe some sort of standardization is needed...in some instances we have just a month and year, and others we have the month and date without the year. I'll check MOS to see what, if anything is needed here.--MONGO 01:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I was of the thinking that all refs should be at the end of a sentence...but not sure if this has changed. There are a few instances in which (maybe a good idea for fact checking) I see refs in the middle of a sentence.--MONGO 02:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment from jimfbleak Khalid al-Mihdhar (Arabic: خالد المحضار, also transliterated Almihdhar) Two points
 * why do we need the Arabic on en-wiki?
 * perhaps more importantly, if Almihdhar is the transliteration, what is al-Mihdhar? It certainly doesn't look like an Anglicisation. Is there any point having what appear to be two different transliterations?


 * jimfbleak (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a point to displaying the alternate transliterations: like Halacha, Halocho, Halakha are different versions of הלכה. Similar to Hebrew, I don't think that Arabic vowels are vocalized in text; hence, writers may use differing Roman vowels to represent the sound. It could cause confusion for a reader unfamiliar with transliteration. A young reader may not grasp immediately that, despite spelling differences, the names refer to the same person. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Likewise, the Arabic script should be retained for the subject's name. The English transliteration is, at best, an approximation of his name. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that providing the Arabic is a standard MOS thing that is done across Wikipedia. The reason I see for doing this is that only with the Arabic written, can one really know how his name is pronounced.  Four of the Arabic letters are for sounds that we don't have in English.  This is especially important for the first "h" and the "d" sounds in Mihdhar, where Arabic has two variations of the "h" sound (ه and ح)and there is a "d" - د sound like English and a "d" - ض, which is a hard, deeper/emphasized pronunciation.  The second h in "Mihdhar" is not pronounced, but rather the "dh" is to indicate the hard "d" sound.  Also, the kh - خ is different than anything in English, and the ر "r" is trilled like in Spanish. For benefit of readers who know Arabic script, it's a good idea to go ahead and provide the Arabic script so they know what his name really is. Furthermore, with the Arabic script, one can go out on Google or elsewhere and search for Arabic language material about him. --Aude (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As for alternative transliterations, "al-Mihdhar" is most commonly used, though "Almihdhar" has also been used fairly often (e.g. FBI press release). I think it's a good idea to provide all the commonly used variations, which helps people who want to search for information on him. As well, I think providing alternative transliterations are common practice on Wikipedia, per WP:MOSAR. --Aude (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

4 quick Comments That's all I have time for at the moment, hopefully this helps. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it possible for current citation #3 (9/11 comm. report, Chapter 5) to be more precise? Chapter 5 is long and I notice that the chapters are broken into subsections. In the absence of page numbers, could you cite the subsection (e.g. section 5.3)?
 * There is a lot going on in this sentence (1st section, 1st para): "In 1997, al-Mihdhar told his family that he was leaving to fight in Chechnya;although that year both men caught the attention of Saudi intelligence, who believed they were involved in arms smuggling, and the following year were again eyed as possible collaborators in the United States embassy bombings in East Africa" Any way we can simplify it?
 * Suggestion: what do you think of changing this: "During a 1999 meeting in Riyadh, the Saudi Intelligence service notified their CIA counterparts that Mihdhar and Hazmi were involved with Al-Qaeda. to this: During a 1999 meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Intelligence notified the CIA of Midhar and Hazmi's involvement with Al-Qaeda''?
 * Likewise: In late 1999, the NSA picked up a conversation which mentioned an upcoming meeting in Malaysia involving "Khalid", "Nawaf", and "Salem", and informed the CIA to this: "In late 1999 the NSA informed the CIA of an upcoming meeting involving...."? (Malaysia Summit, 1st para)
 * I made changes based on your comments. --Aude (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments regarding criterion three:
 * Image:KAlmihdhar.JPG - purpose of "This photograph was widely circulated after the September 11 attacks by the FBI" is, in fact, not a purpose. WP:NFCC#10C requires a detailed, relevant purpose.  NFCC#10A requires attribution of the copyright holder.
 * Image:HotelAddress.jpg - is not correctly tagged. This is not the work of a federal government employee.  Mere use in a federal report does not transfer copyrights to the government nor does it release copyrights.
 * Image:Dulles khalidalmihdhar.jpg - does not appear to be contributing significantly to our understanding (NFCC#8) and/or appears freely replaceable (NFCC#1). The purpose of "To illustrate that Khalid al-Mihdhar and other hijackers were at Dulles International Airport on September 11, 2001, on their way to board American Airlines Flight 77 and carry out the September 11, 2001 attacks" seems inadequate.  What understanding of the topic do we gain from this?  Doesn't prose tell us they were at the airport (isn't it common sense, as they hijacked the plane)?  What understanding does the visual impart above and beyond the prose?  "This video footage was used in the trial against Zacarias Moussaoui" is irrelevant to this article; Moussaoui isn't even mentioned once.  No copyright holder is attributed.  Эlcobbola  talk 19:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I added more detailed descriptions and rationales for use for the drivers license photo and security camera image. For the ID card, I have to say that it would be PD-ineligible.  It's a forgery of an official US government document, and I highly doubt that the fake ID makers can claim copyright.  Nor would such claims hold up since Mohamed el-Atriss, the owner of All Services Plus which made/sold the ID, pleaded guilty for selling this and other false documents. I have updated the image page to clarify this. --Aude (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Problematic images have been removed; no remaining image concerns. Эlcobbola  talk 22:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

image questions Why after it being asserted that the photograph contained in Image:HotelAddress.jpg is PD, yet the non-free Image:KAlmihdhar.JPG is used to show what the subject looks like, as there is no free alternative? How do you know Image:HotelAddress.jpg is PD. How does Image:Dulles_khalidalmihdhar.jpg significantly increse the readers' understanding? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I took out the fake ID. I'm not sure enough that it would be public domain, and not sure how official it is as government document.  The drivers' license photo circulated by the FBI is most clear when it comes to knowing its source.  For the security footage, we have a screenshot included now.  I would prefer a brief video clip instead of a screenshot, which shows the sequence of events in screening them which the article text refers to.  But don't know if brief fair use video clips are permitted.  Nonetheless, the still image also helps beyond the text to show how the security screeners did with these two hijackers (which the 9/11 Commission described as "marginal at best"), also show how they were dressed, their demeanor, carry-on items, etc.  Furthermore, with all the conspiracy theories out there, there are some people who don't believe that these men were on the flight and carried out the attacks, but here you see they were indeed at the airport. --Aude (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I really cant see Image:Dulles khalidalmihdhar.jpg meeting {{WP:NFCC]]#8, and thus the article fails Featured Article Criteria #3 Fasach Nua (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I took it out. I think the security camera image (perhaps a different screenshot of the "wanding" of Moqed or Hazmi) would be a better fit on the Flight 77 article.  Perhaps it is too tangential to this article.  With taking it out, there still is an image in the section of this article. --Aude (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I have deleted the Dulles security camera image and the fake ID image, as both nonfree and unused. --Aude (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * criteria 3 now met Fasach Nua (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I am satisfied that this article is an excellent summary of this individual, is accurate in its representation of the known information regarding him and is presented in a neutral and encyclopedic manner congruent with FA expectations.--MONGO 07:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Prose issues, particularly much repetition of individual words and phrases.  See my recent copy-edits for examples of the kind of work necessary.  There's also inconsistency in the rendering of Arabic names: should the "al-" be included or not?  I have no idea which is correct, but for instance mostly the subject is called "Mihdhar," but elsewhere he's "al-Mihdhar." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Jbmurray. Spot-check ...
 * "and also alerted them"—remove "also".
 * "On January 5, Mihdhar traveled on to Kuala Lumpur, where he met up with Hazmi, Attash, and Abu Bara, who were all arriving from Pakistan."—did they arrive before he "met up with" them? And "met" ... "meet".
 * "and left a week later on January 15 to travel to the United States"—"and left a week later on January 15 for the United States". Avoids repetition. Tony   (talk)  08:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have done further copyediting and am seeking an uninvolved editor to go through the article. The few instances referring to "al-Mihdhar" have been changed to just "Mihdhar."  I found nothing in the MOS about whether he should be referred to as "al-Mihdhar" or just "Mihdhar".  I looked at what the 9/11 Commission Report does, what Lawrence Wright does in his book (referenced in the article), and what Terry McDermott does in his book (also referenced in the article).  They all refer to him as "Mihdhar", unless saying his full name, then it's "Khalid al-Mihdhar." --Aude (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Update - User:Momoricks has helped out a lot with copyediting, as well as pointing out things for me to clarify and fix. I have gone through and made necessary changes, and additional copyediting has been done since leaving my previous note above. --Aude (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Have Opposers been asked to revisit? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like pestering people, but I could ask them. --Aude (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Left messages with the reviewers. --Aude (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are diffs for the messages left with Jbmurray and Tony1:   If there are any outstanding copyediting issues or anything else, please let me know so I can address them. --Aude (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Leaning to support, but "came from a prominent family" at the start cries out for expansion, and the only link I followed, Network analysis at the end, needs disaming. I also wonder if an extra timeline section would make things clearer in this case. I note the outstanding prose opposes above also. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I adjusted the wikilink.
 * As for more details about his family, I can't find any, even searching news archive databases like Lexis-Nexis. The only possibility for more details is to Arabic language newspapers (and I do know Arabic), to see if any talked to or provided information about his family.  I know that Jamal Khashoggi of Al Watan did good reporting on many of the hijackers, though not sure if that covers Mihdhar. Checking these sources requires going to a library that has an archive of them, which I might be willing to do after working on more hijackers' articles, but not right now.
 * Adding a timeline? "in this case"? I'm not sure what you have in mind. Can you please point me to another article that is an example? or try to clarify.
 * I believe that opposes above regarding prose have been addressed. Another user has helped out a lot in the past few days.  If there is anything regarding prose that you think needs to still be addressed, please let me know.
 * --Aude (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. This bio is an accurate and excellent summary of Khalid al-Mihdhar's life. It satisfies WP:FACR. I'm satisfied with this bio. AdjustShift (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Comments.  Leaning towards support.  I have a couple of comments:
 * Two of the images are behaving oddly for me: the apartment, and the image of the Pentagon. In both cases the image is replaced by its caption, blue-linked.  The problem only occurs with Firefox; it works OK in IE and Chrome.  I see nothing wrong with the syntax, but when I tried copying it to my sandbox I found I could make it work OK by adding a pixel size.  I won't oppose on this basis, since as far as I can tell it's just a Firefox issue, but I thought I should let you know.
 * The lead does not mention any of the information from the "aftermath" section; I think a sentence or two would be good. This is an important part of the article and should be reflected in the lead.
 * I have a minor MOS issue which I have asked Tony about, but I won't oppose on that since it's easily fixed. If you fix the lead I will support.
 * -- Mike Christie (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you reviewing the article.
 * I have added two sentences to the lead, to reflect what's mentioned in the Aftermath section.
 * I tweaked it a bit and have supported; please edit my changes further if you think they're not improvements. Mike Christie (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the images, Wikipedia servers were down for ~10 minutes earlier (about 7 hours ago). I wonder if it's a problem with the thumbnail caching from Commons, related to the server outage?  The infobox image of Mihdhar is uploaded locally, and appears okay for you, but not the two images from Commons.
 * Could be. The problem has now gone away.  Mike Christie (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For the MOS issue, I don't know if there is an official way for using punctuation in the references. I looked at other featured articles as examples, such as Samuel Johnson, but maybe that article got it wrong too.  If Tony can clarify, that would be helpful. --Aude (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * After tracking down what the question was, I'm not aware of any guideline regarding full stops at the end of shortened citations. If one existed, it should be at WP:CITE, but that page has been edited beyond anything intelligible in the last few months, and I'm not even sure the page is even trustworthy anymore (I can barely decipher what it's saying most of the time, and it used to be a fairly decent page).  As long as your citations are consistent, with or without a period and wrt p. or p or pp. or pp it's fine.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I could swear I'd seen a guideline on it, long ago, but whatever. It's fine as is.   I'm switching to support above. Mike Christie (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. I'm not sure if Tony or Jbmurray plan on coming back, but did see that Jbmurray gave User:Momoricks an award for copyediting help with this article. Thus, I believe the objections have been addressed, unless someone says otherwise (then I will be happy to address anything else). --Aude (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update, Aude; I've been watching for ten days now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.