Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quneitra
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 02:59, 8 October 2007.
Self-nomination. I have a soft spot for abandoned/destroyed cities (Pompeii, Sukhothai etc...) and found this story particularly interesting, given its recent nature. This article had previously been the subject of some POV-pushing and edit warring. I rewrote it from scratch and greatly expanded it with a wide range of modern and contemporary sources to provide a neutral overview of a controversial issue. The article has been stable for some time, has been featured on the Main Page's "Did You Know?" section and achieved good article status last month. I believe it meets the FA criteria and would be a useful addition to the list of featured articles. -- ChrisO 01:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, a very nice little article that appears to be close to FA yes, good referencing. A few things though:
- In general, I believe section headings are not supposed to repeat the article title (e.g. "Destruction" or "Destruction of the city" instead of "Destruction of Quneitra") (see WP:HEAD)
- The website linked in the infobox does not work (at least not at the moment), is it still correct?
- There are 2 redlinks in the article, would it be possible to generate small stub articles for those (not an FA requirement, but a personal preference of me)?
- --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've modified the section headings accordingly. The infobox website did work up until a couple of weeks ago. I've left the link intact for now, but I'll replace it by the end of the month if it stays dead. As for the redlinks, I'll see what I can do... -- ChrisO 12:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose "Political status" section needs references. --Kaypoh 11:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now provided. -- ChrisO 11:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict does not mention Quneitra at all. So Quneitra is not comprehensive, because it has no info about the legal status of the area. --Kaypoh 11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It describes the status of the Golan Heights area, within which Quneitra is located. I've clarified this in the article. -- ChrisO 12:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict does not mention Quneitra at all. So Quneitra is not comprehensive, because it has no info about the legal status of the area. --Kaypoh 11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now provided. -- ChrisO 11:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, assuming the remaining issues will be looked into, as the nominator stated above. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments—I've copy-edited the opening; the rest needs work by someone new. Check overlinking (especially repeated links). Use an en dash usually for year ranges (see my change to a title). En dash for "Arab–Isreali war". Use "logical" punctuation at end of quotes (see MOS). "Sightseeing". Consider using the blockquote function below the edit box for the quote(s). Political status section needs fleshing out: it's a bizarre political situation, and our readers will be interested. Something makes me want this to be a little larger. I do hope the nomination succeeds. Tony 14:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Good now. Tony (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Article on a contentious topic which is not neutral at all. Following the Israeli withdrawal, allegations emerged that much of Quneitra had been razed to the ground - but there are no indications that it is not true, so it should rather be Following the Israeli withdrawal, much of Quneitra had been razed to the ground (or perhaps, Prior to Israeli withdrawal...). The city had reportedly been systematically stripped by the Israeli forces - no indications that it is not true, so it should be The city had been systematically stripped by the Israeli forces. In violation of the provisions of the 1974 disengagement agreement - unsourced, and I find it hard to believe that an agreement specifies that an area must be repopulated (even if f.e. its residents don't want it). Destructed by the Zionists and changed it to firing target - bad grammar, probably should be changed into. Additionally, there are no sections which all articles on cities should have, such as "Geography", "Demographics" (should discuss demographics before destruction) etc. Nikola 07:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the input, Nikola. You're right about the "allegations" weasel wording - this wasn't in my original version, someone has seen fit to add it. There's no doubt at all that the city has been razed; the only dispute is over who did it and how (see e.g. [1], so I've removed the word from the article. In the next line that you highlight, the "reportedly" is there because that is a controversial point - as far as I know, the Israelis haven't officially admitted looting the city, so it's necessary to indicate that this is a contentious point. As for the agreement, you can read it for yourself here - it states that "All territory east of Line A [the disengagement line just west of Quneitra] will be under Syrian administration, and the Syrian civilians will return to this territory." The line "Destructed by the Zionists" is sic - if you look at the full resolution version of the photo of the destroyed hospital, you'll see that the English words on the sign say just that. Finally, fair point about the need for a Geography and Demographics section; I'll add that to the article. -- ChrisO 09:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added a Geography and Demographics section as requested. -- ChrisO 00:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with me now, except for the: "In violation of the provisions of the 1974 disengagement agreement, Quneitra has not been repopulated". I'm no expert on the international law, but I don't think that that means that the city must be repopulated. Even if the agreement states that "civilians will return", it only means that they can return, but they don't absolutely have to. I seriously doubt that it is a violation of the agreement if, say, civilians don't want to return, or the area became unsuitable for living, or Syria simply has no money to rebuild the city etc. I'm not sure how to solve this, perhaps with a line like in the intro: "The government of Syria has been criticized for not returning civilians to Quneitra, per provisions of the 1974 disengagement agreement.". If it's changed to something like that, I support. Nikola 19:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added a Geography and Demographics section as requested. -- ChrisO 00:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the input, Nikola. You're right about the "allegations" weasel wording - this wasn't in my original version, someone has seen fit to add it. There's no doubt at all that the city has been razed; the only dispute is over who did it and how (see e.g. [1], so I've removed the word from the article. In the next line that you highlight, the "reportedly" is there because that is a controversial point - as far as I know, the Israelis haven't officially admitted looting the city, so it's necessary to indicate that this is a contentious point. As for the agreement, you can read it for yourself here - it states that "All territory east of Line A [the disengagement line just west of Quneitra] will be under Syrian administration, and the Syrian civilians will return to this territory." The line "Destructed by the Zionists" is sic - if you look at the full resolution version of the photo of the destroyed hospital, you'll see that the English words on the sign say just that. Finally, fair point about the need for a Geography and Demographics section; I'll add that to the article. -- ChrisO 09:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How (and where?) does Quneitra Governorate function? Does it operate out of the ruins of Quneitra, or is it de facto somewhere else? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I understand it, the governorate - the province itself - is still in existence, albeit with most of its territory in Israeli hands. I haven't found any reference to where the provincial government is based but it doesn't seem very likely that it would be in Quneitra itself. -- ChrisO 00:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think the article is neutral, and I believe the new section has answered the concerns about comprehensiveness. DrKiernan 08:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.