Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will be posting my comments shortly. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 07:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Review 1

Issues resolved, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Issues resolved, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The attacks, which began on 26 November 2008 and ended on 29 November 2008 killed at least 173 people wounded at least 308.

Should be a comma after "29 November 2008". Also, ", and" after "people".

 Done—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensplanet (talk • contribs)

and a lane behind the Times of India building behind St. Xavier's College.

Do you need to say, basically, it was behind a building behind a building?

 Done--Cerejota (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

...and a taxi blast at Vile Parle.

What is a "taxi blast"?

 Done explosion at a taxi.--Cerejota (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

An action by India's National Security Guards on 29 November resulted in the conclusion of the Taj Mahal Palace encounter, ending all fighting in the attacks.

What does "an action" mean? And maybe you could be more clear with "conclusion of the...encounter". Was everyone killed or what?

 Done wikilinked to appropriate article for "action" (it is a technical term used in tactical counter-terrorism), rewrote to fit "conclusion" more explicitly.--Cerejota (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Indian Government said that the attackers came from Pakistan, and their controllers were in Pakistan.

What does "controllers" mean exactly? Financers? Bosses?

 Done This is a technical term sometimes used in tradecraft and hence in the sources, so I wikilinked to Agent handling, the narrowest article with the term "controller" in this sense mentioned - although it does need some work and is being considered for merging into espionage. I think this is good solution anyways. --Cerejota (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The attacks drew widespread condemnation across the world.[14]

This sentence doesn't really fit into the flow of the lead, and seems isolated.

 Done Move it to the end of the first paragraph, were I think it flows nicely. Nice catch ;)--Cerejota (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

On January 7, 2009, after more than a month of denying the nationality of the attackers being Pakistani,[15] Pakistan's Information Minister Sherry Rehman officially accepted Ajmal Amir's nationality as Pakistani.

I don't think you need to say "Pakistani" twice, instead maybe: "....after more than a month of denying the nationality of the attackers,,,", and only say it once at the end.

 Done - Kensplanet (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And two things: 1. The last paragraph could be combined with the one before it. 2. The lead is six paragraphs long. Per WP:LEAD#Length, "As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs".

 Done combined paragraphs, intro now four paragraphs long. I seriously doubt we can make it shorter without deleting relevant lead information.--Cerejota (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Background

Issues resolved, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference? Also, I don't think you need "Mumbai has suffered several terror attacks" is needed if you already have "It has also seen many bombings in last decade."

 Done Added REF from BBC. Removed "Mumbai has suffered several terror attacks"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensplanet (talk • contribs)

On 6 December 2002, a bomb placed under a seat of an empty BEST (Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport) bus exploded near Ghatkopar station in Mumbai, killing two people and injuring around 28.

How can there be "around 28" people.

 Done Simplified to only 28 as per REF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensplanet (talk • contribs)

The bombing occurred on the tenth anniversary of the demolition of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya.

Ref?

 Done Added REF from BBC. If you check, this is an 6 December 1992 article. The bombing which we are discussing occurred on 6 December 2002. So, tenth annivesary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensplanet (talk • contribs)

On 27 January 2003, a bomb placed on a bicycle exploded near the Vile Parle station in Mumbai. The bomb killed one person and injured 25. Could be combined, the two sentences.

 Done--Cerejota (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

On 13 March 2003, a bomb exploded in a train compartment, as the train was entering the Mulund station in Mumbai. 10 people were killed and 70 were injured.

On 28 July 2003, a bomb placed under a seat of a BEST bus exploded in Ghatkopar. The bomb killed 4 people and injured 32.

Again, I think it could be combined.

 Done--Cerejota (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

209 people were killed[24] and over 700 were injured.

Should be comma after killed.

 Done Added Comma. Kensplanet

In general for this section, I think you don't need quite so many reports of attacks right after another. Maybe you could try to summarize a bit, and have it flow together?

Question to Reviewer What you have in mind, quite frankly I think it is good that way - it is precisely a summary of the attacks with casualties. Maybe a table? Could you please clarify?--Cerejota (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I Agree. That may require a thorough discussion on the Talk Page. Different people may have different ideas. In its current form, it looks proper. Kensplanet (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Attribution

Issues resolved, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, I think this section should go below the Attacks section.

Comment See my comment at Talk:2008_Mumbai_attacks/GA2#Reactions_and_Aftermath the end to open discussion around this.--Cerejota (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The evidence, shown to friendly governments and media, provides a detailed sequence of training, supplying, and constant communications with handlers from Pakistan.

Who was "training, supplying, and [in] constant communications with handlers"?

Sorry. No information available on that. Kensplanet (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the sources says this. We cannot engage on OR.--Cerejota (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, Indian government officials said that the attacks were so sophisticated that they must have had official backing from Pakistani "agencies",[33] an accusation denied by Pakistan.

Personally, I don't think "moreover" is a great word to use. Also, this one small sentence should be joined to some other paragraph.

 Done--Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 11:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

However, Indian investigators refuted this claims, with the Home minister P Chidambaram dismissing the claim as "rubbish"

Shouldn't it be "Home Minister"? And also shouldn't you refer to him by his full name? Also, the ref number should come after the period.

 Done - Kensplanet (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

On February 12, 2009, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik has agreed that some part of the conspiracy did take place in Pakistan.

Should be in past tense, not present perfect. And a ref?

 Done. If you check the sentences On February 12, 2009, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik agreed that some part of the conspiracy did take place in Pakistan. Malik said that Pakistan has lodged the FIR under Anti-Terrorism Act against three persons. have been cited by REF40. Kensplanet (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Malik said that Pakistan has lodged the FIR under Anti-Terrorism Act against three persons.

Again, should be plain past. And what is the "FIR"?

 Done. FIR = First Information Report. Kensplanet (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There were reports initially about possible involvement of the Mumbai underworld...

This whole proceeding paragraph has an abrupt ending. What happened, where the reports proved false or what?

 Done A while ago. I eliminated the section as irrelevant, it belongs in "Erroneous reporting", if at all.--Cerejota (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

They looked young, in their early twenties, and wore T-shirts, black shirts, and jeans.

Who said they looked young?

 Done. Witnesses ofcourse. Kensplanet (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Some witnesses have even said that they smiled and looked happy as they shot their victims.

Should be past tense to be consistent.

 Done - Kensplanet (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Dera Ismail Khan is in the North-West Frontier Province, the rest of the towns are in Pakistani Punjab.

Should be a conjunction or a semicolon.

 Done semicolon. --Cerejota (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ajmal Amir was the only terrorist captured alive by police and is currently under arrest.

Is this really current to say he is under arrest, or has something happened since then.

Comment He is currently under arrest. This is a WP:SUMMARY for the sub-article, so while the information might change, further elaboration is not needed.--Cerejota (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

However, Indian police have stated that there was no evidence to confirm this.

Ref? And past tense.

 Done Also a while ago, this is irrelevant and probably OR so it was taken out.--Cerejota (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

On February 12, 2009, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik has said that Pakistani national Javed Iqbal, who acquired the VoIP phones for Mumbai attackers in Spain has been arrested. He added that another person called Hamad Ameen Sadiq, who facilitated money transfer for the terrorist attack in Mumbai, has also been held.

Past tense. And at least a wikilink for VoIP, or maybe a full spelling out.

 Done - 216.77.239.82 (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Attacks

Issues resolved, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

First off, there are several "citation needed" tags in this section, and those need to be addressed.

 Done Found only one, and rewrote/resourced it. Others apparently took care of it before I got to it.--Cerejota (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Both hotels were on fire and were surrounded by Rapid Action Force personnel and MARCOS and NSG commandos.

Were on fire when? There's no preceding time to go with this.

 Done Eliminated reference to fires as irrelevant, and gave a time frame.--Cerejota (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Reports emerged of terrorists receiving live feeds broadcast by television stations; feeds to the hotels were subsequently blocked.

I think this could be better stated: "When reports emerged..., feeds to the hotels were blocked.

 Done--Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 10:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

All terrorists were out of the Taj hotel, and police and firefighters were working to rescue the estimated 50 people trapped inside. Low-intensity blasts were reported in Vile Parle and a grenade attack in Santa Cruz. Two blasts were reported in the Nepean Sea Road area of south Mumbai. Local Mumbai Suburban Railway trains on the Western Railway were running, whereas those of the Central Railway were suspended.

Again, time issues. And refs?

 Done. Removed the sentences Low-intensity blasts were reported in Vile Parle and a grenade attack in Santa Cruz. Two blasts were reported in the Nepean Sea Road area of south Mumbai. Local Mumbai Suburban Railway trains on the Western Railway were running, whereas those of the Central Railway were suspended. They do not belong in this section. Also added a REF. Kensplanet (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A number of European Parliament Committee on International Trade delegates were staying in the Taj Mahal hotel when it was attacked,[61] but none of them were injured.

"but none of them were injured." needs a ref.

 Done ref from DAP.--Cerejota (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Another British Conservative MEP, Syed Kamall, reports that he along with several other MEPs left the hotel and went to a nearby restaurant shortly before the attack.

Past tense.

 Done. Kensplanet (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

He did not leave his room for a long time, but he finally managed to safely leave the hotel.

"a long time" is rather informal and imprecise. Should be changed to something more definite.

 Done Reworded to fit both source and actual spirit. Eliminated bit of "leaving room" as irrelevant: the point is he was inside and did leave safely.--Cerejota (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Kamall and Guardans report that a Hungarian MEP's assistant was shot.

Past tense.

 Done Kensplanet (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The house was stormed by NSG commandos and, after a long battle, the two terrorists were killed.

What is NSG? And ref?

 Done I wikilinked to NSG (again as it is already wikilinked before in the article - I think its bad to have multiple wikilinks to the same article, but its the only way to explain what NSG is without saying it again) and added named ref with cite template.--Cerejota (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

According to one report, Nariman House, not the Taj Mahal Hotel, was the prime target on November 26 and The Mumbai crime branch, which is investigating the terror attacks, has found that the terrorists' handlers in Pakistan were clear this operation should not fail under any circumstances.

Run-on after "November 26", I think?

 Done. Splitted into 2 sentences. Kensplanet (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

By the morning of 27 November, the army had secured the Jewish outreach center at Nariman House as well as the Oberoi Trident hotel and incorrectly believed that the Taj Mahal Palace and Towers had also been cleared of terrorists. The fires were out and soldiers were leading hostages and holed-up guests to safety, and removing bodies of those killed in the attacks.

Should be comma after "Trident hotel". Also, I thinking it could be written better as "By the morning of 27 November, the army had secured the Jewish outreach center at Nariman House as well as the Oberoi Trident hotel. They also incorrectly believed that the Taj Mahal Palace and Towers had been cleared of terrorists, and soldiers were leading hostages and holed-up guests to safety, and removing bodies of those killed in the attacks."

 Done. Your version is better. Implemented your version. Kensplanet (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fires were also reported as having been caused at the ground floor of the Taj with plumes of smoke arising from the first floor.

I think "as having been caused" can be removed. And in general, throughout the section, should the hotel be so informally referred to as "the Taj"?

 Done. Yes, the Hotel can be referred as the Taj throughout the section. In fact, the Hotel is popularly known only as the Taj. Something similar to the US and United States. Kensplanet (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The security forces rescued 250 people from the Oberoi, 300 from the Taj and 60 people (members of 12 different families) from Nariman House.

Ref?

 Done. Provided REF from Times of India Kensplanet (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The terrorists used at least three SIM cards purchased on the Indian side of the border with Bangladesh, pointing to some local collusion.

Maybe wikilink for SIM?

 Done--Cerejota (talk) 08:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Police have also mentioned that Faheem Ansari, an Indian Lashkar operative who has been arrested in February 2008, has scouted the Mumbai targets for the November attacks.

Past tense?

 Done. Kensplanet (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

Issues resolved, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This section is really short. Could be combined into one paragraph.

 Done Combined into one paragraph. It may be short but is quite comprehensive. People interested will have to check Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensplanet (talk • contribs)

Reactions and Aftermath

Issues resolved, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

These 2 sections are desperately underreferenced. Every paragraph needs at least one ref.

The 2 Sections are well cited now. This issue has been resolved. 13:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think that the structure for the last part of the article could be something like:

(Level-2 heading) Aftermath

(L3 heading) Casualties

(L3 heading) Reactions

(L3 heading) Attribution

Comment I do not think that Casualties is "Aftermath" - the event happened over the course of three-four days, and there where casualties, such as those is the fishing boat, even before the attackers reached Mumbai. Attribution is less clear, there is a certain attribution aspect that is "aftermath", an important part of this article was the amount of media coverage given to misattribution, to the point it has its own article. So I am not sure how to proceed... perhaps split attribution? Things is, the attribution section is actually a WP:SUMMARY for a sub-article, so I am not sure it makes sense. You get the predicament?--Cerejota (talk) 08:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment On a related thing, the "Attribution" could go after attacks, however this is done because of a lot of RS preoccupation with Attribution, over the actual events. In particular, the controversial nature and erroneous reporting around attribution has been a source of concern in RS, paradoxically even more than the attacks themselves. So "who did it", seems to be as important to RS as "what was done" - the order is because "attribution" has elements of "background" and elements of "attacks", so it serves as a narrative bridge of sorts for the encyclopedic voice.--Cerejota (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, we'll sweat the small stuff first. I'll get back to this later. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So, we get back to this. Again, I think that in interests of chronological continuity, you should move attribution down below the attacks section. It definitely happens after them (as does arrests and description of the attackers). And again, I think that "reaction" and "aftermath" are almost the same, and can be combined (Reaction probably a sub-heading of "Aftermath"). Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me call attention to this again, in case you missed it. There's not a lot to hold it back from passing, but it would be good to think about this again. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 23:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done I have: 1) Combined "Aftermath" with "Reactions", with reactions now a sub-section of aftermath; 2) Moved "Attribution" after attacks. I have not modified the text of any of the sections, only moved them.--Cerejota (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And is the "Locations" section really necessary? And the "external links" really necessary, especially the last one?

 Done It's always good to have External links. Removed the Last one. IP activity was very high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensplanet (talk • contribs)

Comment on "Locations" Geolocations are supported, and increasingly a part of articles with geographic information. Please see WP:GEO. It would seem to me that geographical information in these formats actually increases encyclopedic value. If this is a hard opposition, I would suggest WP:SUMMARY to a sub-article, as the information is of value. Comments?--Cerejota (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Issues resolved, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, some improvements: Current refs 3, 30, 32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 45, 50, 56, 57, 58, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 87, and 92 are missing either publisher/work info, or dates (in some cases, those should be separated from the link.

And look at this linkchecker for this article. As you can see, there are some dead links you need to take care of.

So, a lot of work.

Noble Story (talk • contributions) 15:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: REFS 1 TO 25 Done. Formatted properly and Removed Dead links. Kensplanet (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No Dead links now. Kensplanet (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

REFS 25-50 Formatted. Few REFS remaining. Kensplanet (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Done with REFS 70-90. Only 50-70 remaining. Kensplanet (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It was terrible. But all formatting issues related to REFS have been resolved. Hope it looks neat now. Kensplanet (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Note from reviewer

Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, I'll post my response to the fixes after all the issues are addressed. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 12:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been a week since I posted my comments, and many of them have not been fixed. It needs to be done. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 15:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Around 70% of the issues have been resolved. I'm sure within the next 3-4 days, all the issues will be resolved. Kensplanet (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, many of them? I would say most of them have been addressed ;) This includes two full sections. --Cerejota (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Review 2

Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Background

Issues resolved, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On 11 July 2006 seven bombs exploded over a period of 11 minutes on the Suburban Railway in Mumbai at Khar, Mahim, Matunga, Jogeshwari, Borivali, and between Khar and Santacruz.[25] 209 people were killed,[26] and over 700 injured.

This is not really required, but I'm just wondering why a bombing that killed more people than this event does not have an article? If it does, it needs to be linked.

Comment They are in the "Terrorism in Mumbai" navbox. Should we still wikilink? This is the only reason I didn't link it now.--Cerejota (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

In they are all in the navbox, you should either link all of them in the paragraph, or none of them, to be consistent. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Attribution

Issues resolved, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The evidence, shown to friendly governments and media, provides a detailed sequence of training, supplying, and constant communications with handlers from Pakistan.

"Provides" should be past tense for consistency. Also, the source says "The dossier prepared by New Delhi contains transcripts of the conversation between the terrorists and their handlers in Pakistan, official sources said." I think it's pretty clear the "who" in this sentence should be the terrorists.

 Done. Kensplanet (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On February 12, 2009, Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik agreed that some part of the conspiracy did take place in Pakistan.

In pretty much every other date, the format is "DD MMMM YYYY" (12 February 2009), but this date is "MMMM DD, YYYY" (February 12, 2009). It should be changed to have consistency (or maybe all the other dates to this, if you want).

 Done. The entire article follows the DD-MM-YY format now. Kensplanet (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It was initially reported that some of the attackers were British,[41][42] but Indian police later stated that there was no evidence to confirm this.

Ref needed for "but Indian police later stated that there was no evidence to confirm this."

 Done. Added REF. Kensplanet (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Javed Iqbal was lured back from Spain and arrested in Pakistan

You just said he was arrested, do you need to say it again?

 Done. Removed repeated sentence. Kensplanet (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Attacks

Issues resolved, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The attackers traveled by sea from Karachi, Pakistan, across the Arabian Sea to Mumbai. They entered via speedboats that were on board trawlers.

I think these 2 sentences could be reworded like so: "The attackers traveled by sea from Karachi, Pakistan, across the Arabian Sea, and entered Mumbai via speedboats that were on board trawlers."

 Done. Reworded. Kensplanet (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

During the attacks, both hotels were surrounded by Rapid Action Force personnel and MARCOS and NSG commandos

MARCOS and NSG should be expanded on first mention, with the acronym in parentheses. Then you can use the acronym in any further mention. Also, there are at least two other mentions of NSG, both wikilinked, and one expanded. Both can simply be NSG, without a link.

 Done. Kensplanet (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

CNN initially reported on the morning of the 27 November 2008 that the hostage situation at the Taj had been resolved and quoted the police chief of Maharashtra state as saying that all hostages were freed;

Link Maharashtra.

 Done. Kensplanet (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

All attackers were out of the Taj hotel, and police and firefighters were working to rescue the estimated 40 to 50 people trapped inside.

Still time issues. When in relation to the events in the preceding and proceeding sentences did this take place?

 Done. Added by the early morning of November 29 as per REF. Kensplanet (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Mumbai crime branch, which is investigating the terror attacks, has found that the attackers' handlers in Pakistan were clear that this operation should not fail under any circumstances.

First what "this operation" refers to is not clear. The operation on this particular building, or the operation as a whole. Also, this whole idea of this particular building being the real focal point should be expanded on. Why was this chosen to be the focus?

 Done. It was on a particular building - The Nariman House. The modified version

The Mumbai crime branch, which is investigating the terror attacks, has found that the attackers' handlers in Pakistan were clear that the attacks on the Nariman House should not fail under any circumstances. The Nariman house was chosen, since it housed a Jewish centre, and the Islamic fanatic terrorists from Pakistan were clear that they wanted to send a message to the world from there. The rest of the operations at the Taj, Oberoi and Chhattrapati Shivaji Terminus were intended to amplify the effect. Kensplanet (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The gunman who survived said that the terrorists had used Google Earth to familiarise themselves with the locations of buildings used in the attacks.[84]

This is a one-sentence paragraph. Could it be combined elsewhere?

 Done. Combined. Kensplanet (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Reactions

Issues resolved, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think this section (and the next one) are too summarized, and too short. The sub articles they summarize and quite long, and I don't think 2 or 3 short paragraphs can really cover the notable things well enough. For example:

Political reactions in Mumbai and India included a range of resignations and political changes.[94] Reactions included condemnation of the attacks by Indian Muslim organizations and personalities and insurgent movements.

This covers a good section of the sub-article in very concise wording, too concise.

 Done. Expanded a bit. Kensplanet (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

International reaction for the attacks was widespread, with many countries and international organizations condemning the attacks and expressing their condolences to the civilian victims. Many important personalities around the world have very strongly condemned the attacks.

Maybe you could include at least one, short, relevant quote from a notable person? There are a ton of quotes to choose from in the sub-article.

 Done. Added a short quote of George Bush. Kensplanet (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Media coverage highlighted the use of new media and Internet social networking tools, including Twitter and Flickr, in spreading information about the attacks.

Again, maybe some expansion? There's more detail in the sub-article.

 Done. Expanded a bit. Kensplanet (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

Issues resolved, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, a really short summary for a long article.

Besides the immediate impact on the victims and their families, the attacks caused widespread anger among the Indian public and condemnation throughout the world.

Actually, this is already covered in the "Reactions" section, and is redundant.

 Done. Removed it. That is redundant. Kensplanet (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The immediate impact was felt on Mumbai and Maharashtra state, and throughout urban India. There were also after-effects on the Indian government, center-state relations within India, Indo-Pakistani relations, domestic impact within Pakistan, on the United States's relationships with both countries,[99] the US-led NATO war in Afghanistan,[100] and on the Global War on Terror.

Really short summary. In the sub article, notable things to include, perhaps are:

• "Maharashtra state government" and "Government of India" sections, about added security.

 Done. Kensplanet (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Indo-Pakistani relations" damaged relations, very notable.

 Done. Kensplanet (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Impact on the United States" (maybe)

 Done. There was no significant impact in the US, except Condolezza Rice urging Pakistan to co-operate. Need not be mentioned here. Kensplanet (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Citizens' Movement All Across India" Actually, this should really be in the Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks article. Could also be included (with refs) in the main article.

 Done. Added details in the Reactions section. Kensplanet (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I actually think Reactions to the 2008 Mumbai attacks could be merged into Aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. But that's a big step, not really related to this article.

Noble Story (talk • contributions) 13:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Requires a thorough discussion on the Talk Page. This Review Page is out of scope. Kensplanet (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Review 3

Issues resolved, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies about the delayed response.

Attacks

Issues resolved, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Still problems here: Two attackers held hostages, including foreigners, in the Taj Mahal hotel.[53] A team of 200 commandos flew into Mumbai from New Delhi to lead the rescue efforts.[54] CNN initially reported on the morning of the 27 November 2008 that the hostage situation at the Taj had been resolved and quoted the police chief of Maharashtra state as saying that all hostages were freed;[55] however, it was later learned that there were still hostages in the hotel.[53] 35 to 40 people were being held as hostages in the Oberoi Trident hotel.[56] Six explosions were reported at the Taj hotel and one at the Oberoi Trident.

OK, usually a paragraph goes in chronological order. However, I find the order confusing, especially: "35 to 40 people were being held as hostages in the Oberoi Trident hotel.[56] Six explosions were reported at the Taj hotel and one at the Oberoi Trident." Can you tell me how they relate time-wise to the preceding sentences? It's not really clear.

This has not been touched yet. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done I did a rather radical rewrite. I intertwined the two stories, as the combat was very similar (ie explosions, followed by siege/hostage crisis). The major difference is the the Taj was believed to have been cleared at one point and this proved false later in the day. I also elimianted speculation on the size of the hostages taken, as there is not enough clarity, and this is not really a central fact, as the hostages were not held for ransom etc. I hope my boldness is not controversial, as it was done in the spirit of adding to the quality of the article.--Cerejota (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, police seized a boat filled with arms and explosives anchored at Mazgaon dock off Mumbai harbour.

I'm just wondering how relevant this is to the rest of the section? It seems like an orphaned sentence, really.

 Done. Moved to End of Attacks section. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 19:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Reactions

Issues resolved, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Political reactions in Mumbai and India included a range of resignations and political changes, including the resignations of Minister for Home Affairs, Shivraj Patil,[96] Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Vilasrao Deshmukh,[97] and Deputy Chief Minister of Maharastra R. R. Patil.[98] Reactions included condemnation of the attacks by Indian Muslim organizations and personalities and insurgent movements

There are two "reactions included" in these two sentences. Try to change one of them to avoid monotony.

 Done. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 18:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Eminent Muslim personalities like Bollywood actor Aamir Khan appealed to the community members in the country to observe Black Eid on 9 December 2008.

What is Black Eid? Wikilink? Also, using "like" here is rather informal. Maybe "such as"? And perhaps "eminent" (rather POV) could be changed to "prominent", or something similar.

 Done. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 19:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The attacks also triggered a chain of citizens' movements across India like the India Today Group's "War Against Terror" campaign. People from all walks of life hit the streets with candles and placards to pay tributes to the victims of the tragedy.

Again, the use of the word "like". "Hit the streets" is also a slang phrase.

OK, now you need to change "all kinds of people". That is very informal. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done"There were vigils held across all of India with candles and placards commemorating the victims of the attacks."--Cerejota (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 19:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Many important personalities around the world have very strongly condemned the attacks.

Should be simple past tense to keep consistency with the rest of the paragraph.

 Done. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 19:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times and BBC offered live textual coverage online, as did many Indian bloggers and Wikipedia. A map of the attacks was set up using Google Maps.

1. Where's a ref for the first sentence? 2. Who set up the map of the attacks?

 Done. I moved the first sentence under the previous ref, and removed the part about the BBC and the New York Times because there was no reliable source. As for the second problem, going to the Google Maps page and looking at the creator's profile will show that it was created by a web journalist. I will add a ref to the Google Maps page. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 19:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And adding to this: why is a 2-paragraph quote of not-yet President Barack Obama necessary? Surely there must be more important quotes to have. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I fixed this issue by removing the second paragraph of the quote, which is overly long and isn't absolutely necessary. Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 19:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, now the quote needs a ref (and could probably be combined with the previous paragraph. Also, saying "Former US President George W. Bush" is incorrect, since he was still president at the time.

Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Added a ref for the quote, put it under the previous paragraph, and removed "former". Whaatt^uSpeak_{what iDone} 13:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, after a lot of time here, this now fulfills all criteria of a GA. Congratulations to all those who spent a lot of time during this process making this article a ton better. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)