Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack/1

2008 Jerusalem bulldozer attack

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/2008_Jerusalem_bulldozer_attack/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: No consensus &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Fails criterion 2c: The article is overwhelmingly sourced by primary sources, which is an original research issue per WP:PRIMARY.
 * Fails criterion 3a: The article provides little coverage outside of news-style reporting of the actions involved. No meaningful analysis or study is covered.
 * Fails criterion 3b: The little content outside of that is a list of tangentially related events that go out of scope The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 06:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * re 2c: Your interpretation of 'primary sources' is kind of a stretch here - Everything is properly sourced to reputable news sources, the majority of which could not be considered "breaking news" as it wasn't even published on day of the attack.
 * re 3a, 3b: Not to be rude, but you're making up criteria here. 3a states that "it [the article] addresses the main aspects of the topic" (which it does), and 3b "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", kind of the opposite of what you're implying here. Rami R 11:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , have you seen the above from ? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have. I felt that no response was warranted to the claim that new information cannot be primary after something had been ongoing for more than 24 hours. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 17:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)


 * News sources are secondary sources. So primary sources is not really the correct complaint here.  Are there any secondary sources you think should be consulted?  I did a Google search + Google Books search, and saw almost entirely 2008 articles coming back from Google, and nothing substantive on GBooks (references the attack happened, mostly, not in-depth dives).  It's not great to be mostly sourced to at-the-time coverage, but if that's all that exists, then that's all we have.  (But if something else can be found...) SnowFire (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARY: For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.
 * WP:RSBREAKING: When editing a current-event article, keep in mind the tendency towards recentism bias. Claims sourced to initial news reports should be immediately replaced with better-researched and verified sources as soon as such articles are published, especially if original reports contained inaccuracies. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution
 * Also, if all of the sources are from 2008, then this isn't a GAR issue, it's an AfD issue. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 07:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. This topic would obviously be kept at AFD, so I wouldn't suggest bothering.  The matter reached the attention of both the PM of Israel at the time and the Attorney General, who had to respond to it.
 * Checking... that line in NOR was added just a few months ago.  Granted, it's been at the RS guideline for longer, but I'm not sure it's ever come up much there.  Regardless, suffice to say that this is just a case of a policy being poorly phrased IMO.  It's not worth quibbling on this too much, since I agree that heavy sourcing to contemporary news reports is not ideal, but IMO calling them "primary" sources dulls the meaning of just what a "primary" source is.  Primary sources would be, like, interviews with people at the incident or the like.  Breaking news stories might be inaccurate and outdated, but that doesn't make them primary, in the same way that a published book by an independent amateur on a topic who makes factual errors might be unreliable, yet still secondary.
 * EDIT: Also, per your own link, Identifying_and_using_primary_sources suggests that by "breaking news" it really means precisely that: like, news that is happening right-the-hell-now. So I don't think it would be nitpicking to say that sources from a few days later after things have calmed down wouldn't necessarily qualify as a primary source by this definition.  SnowFire (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Back to the merits: So are you saying by the AFD comment that you agree no better sources exist than what's currently used? The best outcome is just to find the better source and save the article, after all. I checked the Hebrew WP article and it seems its sources are from 2008 as well (although, to be clear, not all breaking-breaking news, i.e. stuff from the day after, but rather the weeks after).  It's possible there's a better source in some unknown Hebrew work, but it might be worth verifying whether such source exists. SnowFire (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , have you seen the above? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)