Talk:Palestinian enclaves/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the article twice and looking over the criteria again, I'm not sure I am able to review this article as well as it deserves. I was worried it would be a quickfail on stability, but it is not in my judgement. I'm going to ask for a second opinion, and would ask the second-opinion-giver to fully take over the review. I hope this one can find the reviewer it needs! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the quotes in the "Notes" section are so long and not even fair use (or necessary for the article) such that they're copyvio, but I could be wrong. Moneytrees (a copyright admin) might have a more informed opinion here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations in the notes section are consistent with right to quote. They are used to provide thorough attribution in what is a complex and sensitive subject, without overburdening the main article with too many in line quotations. This practice is often used in high quality articles in controversial topic areas. In the Israel-Palestine area, see for example Balfour Declaration (FA) and Mandate for Palestine (GA). Onceinawhile (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are several excessive quotes in the notes section. I understand that quoting large portions of sources in order to combat claims of source misinterpretation and misinformation is commonly done in controversial topic areas; however, the non-free content criteria needs to be respected, a lot of the quotes are excessive and I wonder how much of the information in them is needed. I would request the article creator trim them down. I personally don't think the quotes in Balfour Declaration are really ok either, but past attempts to remove them have been met with resistance so they've stayed. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 23:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence above is not quite right - the Balfour Declaration quotes were trimmed down to where they are now, but they stayed because there was consensus for them to stay. It was discussed in a few different places, perhaps most notably at this ANI thread which included comments such as: "de minimis refers to each individual source; we never use more than a paragraph" and "We do not have extensive quotation from one source--the longest quote is 365 words long." This is in line with our non-free content criteria guideline examples which state "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea."

I have just been through the quotes in this article again in light of the above. There is not excessive quoting from any one source, and no quote is more than a paragraph long (the majority are 1-3 sentences, and the longest is 277 words). I will review them in more detail, to see which we can trim further.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Onceinawhile to enquire about review status. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 23:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. C. Santacruz, thank you for the nudge. I have now been through all the quotations one by one, and cut them down. The longest quote is now under 150 words; that is less than half of the 367 maximum length of quotations referenced above. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
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.
	7. Overall assessment.

Review will not be completed

I pinged Ganesha811 on their talk page, and they will definitely not be returning to this review. Accordingly, I have returned the nomination to the pool of those awaiting a reviewer without any loss of seniority—it will be one of the oldest unreviewed nominations, and thus likely to be picked up reasonably quickly. The next review will take place on a different page from this one. Pinging nominator Onceinawhile, so they know what is happening. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]