Talk:King David Hotel bombing/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll begin this review later today or tomorrow. Looking forward to working with you, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

First read-through

I'm doing my first read-through, and I'll note down some points big and small here as I go. Tomorrow or Thursday I'll begin the formal checklist, but this will give you a head start.

Overall this looks like a quality article to me. It's detailed about background, the event, and its consequences, and draws on a variety of sources. The only pervasive issue I see is the lack of page numbers, which seriously complicates verifiability. Do you still have these books, and would it be possible to add some of these?

I don't, and never actually had these books. I didn't add those references. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I looked for more guidance on the page numbers issue and found this essay, which appears to me to give good advice.

"Page numbers (or similar details) are only needed when the inline citation concerns one of the above five types of statement and it would be difficult for the reader to find the location in the source without a page number (or similar detail)."

Given the controversy over the KDH bomb, many of the article's statements can be considered controversial; others are direct quotations. This will therefore need at least some page numbers from Clarke, Bethell, and some of the other authors, or these statements will need to be rewritten from other sources. (Also, since one instance of close paraphrasing has already popped up, I'm concerned that we should double-check the sources for more.) I'm willing to put a week's hold on this if you think you can find these, or replace them with other sources. Otherwise, I may need to fail this for now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Other issues:

• "The attack, which initially had the approval of the Haganah (the principal Jewish paramilitary group in Palestine) and was conceived of as a response to Operation Agatha (in which widespread raids, including one on the Jewish Agency, had been carried out), was the deadliest directed at the British during the Mandate era (1920–1948)." This sentence is overly dense--perhaps split this into two sentences to avoid so many parenthetical clauses.

Done. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Controversy has arisen over the timing and adequacy of the warnings and the reasons why the hotel was not evacuated." This is a bit vague; it could be made more clear here when and where the controversy/ies arose.
• "In plan form" -- This phrase confused me. Was the hotel's final shape different than its plans?
• Are the "Criminal Investigation Division" of British military command and the "Criminal Investigation Department" of the Palestine Police the same group?
• I'm correcting much of this as I go, but the article appears to have general problems with WP:OVERLINK--Irgun, for example, is getting re-linked in several sections.
• "The columns were in a basement nightclub known as the Régence.[5] In the final review of the plan, it was decided that the attack would take place on July 22 at 11:00, a time when there would be no people in the coffee shop in the basement in the area where the bomb was to be planted." -- I'm lost here. Is the coffee shop part of the Regence, or near the Regence, or is the Regence both a coffee shop and nightclub?
• "although no evidence has ever been produced to support this." Appears to be original research--can a citation be given here?
• "Irgun did not explain how the group would have been able to move 350 kg of home-made explosives into the hotel with the guards already alerted." Do you mean Katz here, instead of "Irgun"? This critique of the account also appears to be original research.
• "and is more credible" This appears to be editorializing and original research. If it does come from a secondary source, perhaps this could be made clearer.
• I'll need to double-check our policies on this, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to link to a commercial site selling this film here, just as we don't link to Amazon or other booksellers in articles on books.
• The sentence "Speaker after speaker in the House of Commons expressed outrage" appears to be close paraphrasing of the source: [1]. Please rewrite in original language.
• "the enemy of the Jewish people" -- as a quotation, this should be followed by a citation. Is it also from the Simon book?
• "The only criticism made" -- by the witnesses, or by Bethell?
• "The police report makes the likely claim that the warning sent to the French Consulate was received five minutes after the main explosion. This is contradicted by multiple eyewitnesses who reported seeing staff opening the Consulate windows five minutes after that happened." I'm lost in these two sentences. Can you clarify why this is a likely claim, if the eyewitnesses contradict it? In the phrase "after that happened", what does "that happened" refer to?

-- Khazar2 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See below.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Inline citations are mostly included, but page numbers are not, including for some quotations, opinions, and controversial material.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I removed one image that appeared less relevant (it pictured Attlee, but meeting with Stalin) and substituted a simple picture of Attlee. Images have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	see below

1b.

The article largely complies with style guidelines, but the lead gives an incomplete summary of the article. The warnings before the bombing are perhaps excessively detailed, while the reactions, consequences, and later controversies are not adequately summarized. Please rewrite this section to proportionately summarize the article.

Conclusion

This one is close, but can't be listed for now due to lack of page numbers for book quotations, and an incomplete lead. Thanks for your work to improve this article to this point, and I hope it makes it soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)