Wikipedia:Peer review/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1

September 11, 2001 attacks

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. This article has recently achieved good article status after years of failed attempts and I wish to capitalize on this momentum by making a drive toward featured article status. Editors have made excellent progress in the past few months, but I want to know where else we can improve. Please hold your standards high and don't be afraid to raise an issue with the most minute aspect of this article. Remember: we're striving for FA-status.

Thanks, VegitaU (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted FA status, so I looked at the sources as I would have at FAC.


 * Current ref 6 McKinnon, Jim "The phone line from ..." needs a last access date.
 * Done

Current ref 9 "National Commission Upoon Terrorist Attacks in the ..." needs a publisher/author
 * Done


 * Current ref 19 "Profiles of 9/11" lacks a publisher
 * Done


 * Current ref 20 "Broadcasting and Cable" lacks a publisher
 * Done


 * You have a LOT of web site references that are lacking in last access dates. It's nice to give them even when they are just an online version of an also published report.
 * Taken care of.


 * Current ref 65 "Gunaratna, Ronan "Inside Al Qaeda"" is lacking a page number
 * Done


 * Current refs 68 and 69 "Al Qaedas' 1998 Fatwa" are lacking a last access date.
 * Done


 * Current ref 75 is just a title "9-11 Commission, Exectutive Summary". Needs publisher at the very least.
 * Done


 * Current ref 76 McDermott, Terry "Perfect Soldiers..." is lacking a page number
 * Done


 * Stick with either using p. as an abbreviation for page or not using any abbreviation. Examples of both in the article's footnotes.
 * Current ref 98 "Making of the Death pilots" is this a book? Website? Needs more bibliographic information so it can be verified.
 * Updated ref; This was a tough one to track down VegitaU (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Current ref 99 "Wright, Lawrence "The Looming Tower..." is lacking a page number
 * I don't want to get rid of this reference, but I haven't been able to sufficiently satisfy or replace it. It'll be at least another week before I can get my hands on this book. If anyone has it on hand right now, I'd appreciate the input. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotten rid of. -- VegitaU (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Current ref 100 "Al-Qaeda tape finally claims responsiblity for attacks..." is lacking a publisher
 * Publisher added. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Foreign language refs should specify that. (Example, current ref 106 La Audience Nacional dicta la prmera sentencia..." and current ref 108 "El Supremo rebaja de 27 a 12 anos...")
 * Removed foreign sources. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.september11news.com/AboutUs.htm a reliable source?
 * Updated to better source. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Current ref 138 "Hamilton Stuart, 11 September, the internet and the effects..." is lacking the web link that would be expected from the retrieved on date given.
 * Not 100% sure what you meant, but I tweaked the ref to wikilink the title to the PDF document -- VegitaU (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Current ref 146 "Mendez, Juan E. Detainees in Guantanamo Bay..." is lacking a publisher
 * Done


 * Current ref 148 "Lieber, Robert J. "Globalization, Culture and Indentities in Crisis..." is lacking a page number
 * Replaced reference -- VegitaU (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not check for dead links nor did I read the prose. 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going to review this, but could not bring myself to read the whole thing - sorry. I do note the lead should probably be four paragraphs by WP:LEAD. I would probably combine the first one sentence paragraph with the second one. What I read was good Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple more ideas - spell out NIST before using the abbreviation. Hoboken is a city (not a town). I read the USA Today reports on casualties at the time and I seem to recall there was a fair amount of uncertainty - some people may have died and not been reported or some missing may not have died. It is possible these issues have been better resolved since what I read. Would it make sense to add a sentence on this? It is clear a lot of work has gone into this and what I was able to read was well written. Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)