Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive3


 * 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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:53, 10 July 2008.

September 11, 2001 attacks

 * Nominator(s): VegitaU


 * previous FAC
 * Former featured article, has not been on main page.

Self-nomination: This article has significantly improved over the past few months, owing in large part to the stability proferred by an arbitration decision. It has successfully been promoted to good article and has had a peer review as well as a copyedit. I feel it is ready to be reviewed here. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * VegitaU, did you consult the other significant contributors, per WP:FAC instructions? "Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination."  Unless significant contributors agree the article is ready, the nom should be withdrawn.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Article stats:


 * Aude 449
 * Tom harrison 339
 * MONGO 338
 * Golbez 281
 * JimWae 144

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This was brought up on the talk page. Aude sounded like he didn't believe it was ready, for what it's worth. Giants2008 (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's my concern (since I know Aude is busy). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aude and I disagree on this point. He was put-off by the review for American Airlines Flight 77, which he doesn't think is FA-quality despite my best efforts to address his points and use all my available resources. I told him if he could improve the article, to do so. As for this, he says there is some "summary style" issues that don't "jive" with the subarticles. I'm not sure what that means, but I left the thread open for two weeks and no other editor has mentioned any problems. Keep in mind, it's good-quality and I had an external editor come and do a copyedit. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support This article looks pretty good to me. Gary King ( talk ) 19:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued comments: First, let me apologize to SandyGeorgia and to Aude. I didn't check (obviously) who the primary contributors were. Since VegitaU had successfully nominated two related articles, well...you know...
 * Comments
 * I'm going to publish an account of Tama scratching bin Laden's balls off. Then you can do an FAC on him.
 * This needs to be integrated: According to the Commission Report, hundreds were killed instantly by the impact, while the rest were trapped and died after the tower collapsed.[32] As many as 600 people were killed instantly or were trapped at or above the floors of impact in the South Tower.
 * I know the wording in this statement is exact in the field of first response, Rescue and recovery efforts took months to complete but it makes no sense to say that rescue efforts to months to complete. Can you take out "Rescue and"?
 * Have you consciously decided to use Mohammed to represent Mohammed Atef in Planning of the attacks? Would it not be simpler use Atef since Mohamed Atta is in the same paragraph?
 * Why would the government of the United Kingdom also reach the conclusion that bin Laden was responsible for the attacks? Were they conducting investigations of their own? For what reason? Can you include a phrase that would connect that?
 * Can you combine these statements more effectively: Osama bin Laden says he had personally directed the 19 hijackers.[96] In the video, he says, "We had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Atta, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice."
 * I think, since there's so much doubt cast upon the legitimacy of hearings at Guantanamo, that you're going to have to put these statements in context: Mohammed ultimately ended up at Guantanamo Bay. During US hearings in March 2007, which have been "widely criticized by lawyers and human rights groups as sham tribunals", Mohammed again confessed his responsibility for the attacks, saying "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z." How did he confess? Was he on the stand at Guatanamo in a military court?
 * In Motive, you mention bin Laden used the term "spectacular" but it's not clear in what context. Can you give the full quote, please?
 * Under Muslim American reaction, were Muslim Americans the only aliens who were fingerprinted and registered?
 * Do you think it's worthwhile to include information that obituaries for everyone who died in the World Trade Center printed in the New York Times took, I think, three years to print? Or that television and radio broadcast nothing else but news and information about the attacks in the US for 3 days after, and longer in some places? Such a thing has never occurred in my experience.
 * I read half of it. I'll finish the rest soon. I wish I could say it was a joy to read. --Moni3 (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you should include brief examples of what the 9/11 Commission was criticized for.
 * A sentence here starts with a number: 31.9 million square feet of Lower Manhattan office space was either damaged or destroyed.
 * What about the World Trade Center collapse has made it carcinogenic? Was it only the jet fuel? One could reason that someone who works in a building for 20 years with no ill health effects would be just as unaffected by the same disassembled materials. Was there something in the chemical change of the fires and rubble that became carcinogenic?
 * This may be difficult to include, but I feel as if the article does not address the shift in national mentality. Indeed, the article may not be able to do so, but American opinions about being invulnerable and isolated from international conflict were rudely jarred by 9/11. The immediate effects: the War on Terrorism, and the badly associated War in Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, are mentioned, but the longer aftereffects are not. Surely there must be a source that states the long term public and foreign policy effects have yet to be seen. This event will change how the US runs things for decades to come. --Moni3 (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - It's certainly sobering to see this here. The most important event of my lifetime definitely deserves a review from me.
 * In the references, print publishers should be in italics.
 * Current refs 62, 67, 155, 170 and 178 need a publisher.
 * Current refs 41, 77 and 83 should have full caps removed. Only capitalize the first letters of the words.
 * "attempted to retake control of the ir plane." Technically the airline company would have owned the plane.
 * Last sentence of second paragraph: "World Trade Center's collapse" used twice. Mix it up a little.
 * "and a small memorial built on the site." Was built.
 * "The 9/11 Commission Report believed the bombs were probably fake." Believed is an odd choice of words here. How about indicated?
 * Attackers and their motivation, Al-Qaeda: The terrorist group doesn't need a link here after it was just linked. Jihad is linked twice in the section as well.
 * Planning of the attacks: Afghanistan is linked in the prior section.
 * Hijackers: Another al-Qaeda link. Giants2008 (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * What makes http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/project_updates/fiterman_hall_39764.aspx a reliable source?
 * Please check the link checker tool (external links link in the "toolbox" on this page) for links that need checking.
 * Current ref 62 "McKinsey Report NYPD) is lacking a publisher
 * Same for current ref 67 (Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders...)
 * What makes http://muckrakerreport.com/id372.html a reliable source?
 * Is http://muckrakerreport.com/id372.html an official site?
 * Current ref 155 Sigmund Pete (Building a ...) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/ a reliable source?
 * Current ref 170 (Gates, Anita "Buildings Rise from Rubble...) is lacking a publisher
 * Same for current ref 178 (DePalma, Anthony "Many Ground Zero...)
 * Otherwise sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * lowermanhattan.info is a reliable source - the site belongs to the Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center, which was set up by Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki, to oversee construction projects in Lower Manhattan.  muckrakerreport is not a reliable source.  There's definitely a better source to replace the constructionequipmentguide.com source. --Aude (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Featured articles are supposed to represent the "best quality" work on Wikipedia. I have worked quite a lot on this article and can't say it's among the best yet. Same with the Flight 77 article, which I think is quite good but not the best it can be (it can be more comprehensive, better sources used). I have worked quite a lot on the Flight 77 article over the years and want to resolve the issues there (with the little time I have) before working this one through FAC.

The main problems with the September 11, 2001 attacks article is that it is not as comprehensive as possible and does not follow summary style as well as could be done. There are also serious issues with prose, and attention to detail is needed here (MOS, sources, etc.).

I also expect FA to use the best sources available (even if that means going to the library or bookstore to get sources not available online). I'm bothered by articles that go through FA with only web-based sources while neglecting high quality print sources available for the topic. That's little less an issue here than on the Flight 77 article since I have included some such cites here, but I'm not done going through my print sources for this article.

Comprehensive and summary style issues

In working on 9/11 articles, my approach has been to get the subarticles in good shape, with the best sources used, comprehensive, and well-written. Then, with good subarticles, I think the summarized sections here would be much better quality, with the best sources, better written, and comprehensive (with summary details here and full details in the subarticle). I also like to resolve MOS and other details before coming to FAC.

Right now, I feel that many of the sections of the September 11, 2001 attacks article are superficial in detail, quality, and comprehensiveness. This reflects the fact that many of the subarticles need major work, in need of high quality sourcing, etc. The quality of the sections would be improved by following summary style well, and having good quality subarticles to summarize.

So far, I have been working on various subarticles:
 * Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks - using a number of book sources (Peter Bergen, Terry McDermott, ...). I have not completed going through all the key books on the topic.  In the main article, I do have some page citations but there are more to add (Lawrence Wright, Yosri Fouda, ...), while some of the details in the main article will need to be moved into the subarticle or reworked.
 * User:Aude/Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks - this is an effort to combine material that was spread across various different articles. The main article section here does a better job of reflecting how the subarticle will be, but still think the main section would be better quality after getting the subarticle in good shape.
 * Economic effects arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks - same situation here. I had worked some on this and it should be improved.  From what I gather from sources is that the effects were mainly short-term, except for certain industries.  The main article has the "economic effects" section in the "long-term effects" section.  Also, this section mainly provides statistics and numbers.  It doesn't explain how the effects were felt short-term, and longer-term effect for various industries.  Also, what about the compensation for the victims?
 * The rebuilding section is definitely not the best it can be. I have worked on the World Trade Center site article and not done with it yet.  I feel the main article subsection is superficial in quality and its quality would be enhanced greatly when it draws from and summarizes a good quality subarticle.

Prose and other issues

Other issues relate to the quality of the prose. Again, we have lots of facts thrown together and that shows in the prose.

Here are some specific issues:

Lead section
 * "crashed two of the airliners into the World Trade Center in New York City, resulting in the collapse of both buildings" - the WTC consisted of seven buildings. This wording needs to be adjusted.
 * Were "members of the flight crew" involved in attempting to retake control of United Airlines Flight 93, just passengers involved, or what?
 * The "In addition, the death of at least one person from lung disease ..." sentence can be said more concisely.
 * The "The United States passed the USA PATRIOT Act, as many nations..." sentence is awkward.

Attacks
 * "No traces of explosives were found at the crash sites" - what is the reference for this?
 * "The 9/11 Commission Report believed the bombs were probably fake" - really? the report is capable of thinking and believing things? this needs rewording.  Also, why did the 9/11 Commission think this?  This whole bit about "bombs" on the planes and "traces of explosives"
 * "which was given the code name "the Faculty of Law"." - excessive details here
 * The "The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) launched investigations into the cause of collapse ... " paragraph is misplaced or out-of-place in the section that talks about the events on September 11.

Other sections - I don't have time to go through them all right now, but there are issues.

In summary, I think the article falls short of the "comprehensive" FA requirement and doesn't follow "summary style" as well as is possible, has serious prose issues, and can use improvement in other areas. I am more than willing to keep working on the article and subarticle, but now is not a good time for me to work on it. Now is especially not a good time to work the article through FAC, due to my wikibreak and that my boxes of books, documentaries and other sources for the 9/11 attacks are in storage now. I expect to have a break from work/school at the end of August and early September, and willing to put in time then for this article and the subarticles. Now is simply not a good time. --Aude (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Moni3 about bringing articles on other topics (not 9/11) to FA. Only working on 9/11 articles is not the most joyful thing.  Ideally for each 9/11 FA, I like to get another non-9/11 FA.  While I am overseas, I may work a little bit on other topics and come back to the 9/11 articles in 1-2 months. --Aude (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * oppose until Image:Story.crash.sequence.jpg and Image:Bin laden 12 27a.jpg have valid FU rationales Fasach Nua (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose a FAC should be sufficiently stable that it doesnt need to be protected Fasach Nua (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, Fasach Nua. It needs to be stable to the point that major content doesn't change daily. I worked on the article for To Kill a Mockingbird, that is protected because thousands of middle school students cannot control the urge to vandalize it. When it was not protected it was impossible to catch all the instances of vandalism that was mixed in with the content. This may be something you could get clarification on from SandyGeorgia about what constitutes FAC criteria. --Moni3 (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In general, I would agree with Fasach Nua; however, there should be an exception for an article which is controversial. If this article were not protected, it would be overrun by 9/11 conspiracy theorists and vandals--much in the same way the nuclear power article would be overrun with anti-nuclear activists and vandals. Lwnf360 (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair point, I withdraw the objection on the grounds of stability Fasach Nua (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose
 * Overall, I think the article is excellent. I would say that it passes all WP:FACR except the sections on WP:RS.  This article relies very heavily on news articles.  I do see good primary sources, e.g. 9/11 Commission Report, actual legislation, etc. But for every primary source there are seemingly dozens of CNN articles and the like.  This is unacceptable for the wiki's best work. Lwnf360 (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Prose needs a spruce-up throughout. Here are random examples from the top, to start you off. Fresh eyes best.
 * Don't we have guidelines against internal linking? "2,974 people"—irritating to be shunted downwards when you hit it.
 * Why is "civilians" linked? Please see WP:CONTEXT and MOSLINK. Audit the whole article to weed out trivial links: let your high-value links breathe.
 * Comma required? "died as an immediate result of the attacks with another 24 missing and"
 * "The attacks had major ramifications around the world, with the United States declaring a"—The comma's there, but another "with" construction straight away? And please see these exercises on "noun plus -ing". Audit the whole text for overuse of ", with ...". It gets tiring.
 * "Stock exchanges were closed for almost a week, and posted enormous losses immediately upon reopening, with airline and insurance industries suffering the greatest financial losses"—which comma could be removed for smoother reading? "Upon" is rather la-de-da; try "on".
 * It's particularly important not to autoformat in this article (it's no longer encouraged at MOSNUM, in any case). My display keeps saying "11 September 2001", which is—all over the English-speaking world—known in US format, not my UK/Australian format. TONY   (talk)  13:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I want to tell everyone how much I appreciate their comments, but I feel I must withdraw my nomination for this article as I see there's too much that still needs to be tweaked. I also don't want to widen a rift between Aude and myself. I would have wanted this article to be on the Main Page on 9/11, but I feel it would be better to just wait until he gets back from Wikibreak to continue here&mdash;he's made too many contributions for me to just blow him off. Thanks for the support and the constructive comments everyone. I'm not done on the FA boards yet, though. I'm still working on some other articles that I'll nominate when I feel the time is right. Thanks again. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.