Talk:Nukhba (Hamas unit)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 22:50, 6 December 2023 (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).	Copied in part from the talk page: The Hamas Youtube video is a self-published source and not independent of the subject ie Hamas created the video and this article is about a Hamas unit. Just because Hamas and the IDF agree on a unit's capabilities doesn't mean either of them is right. Hamas may inflate its capability for propaganda purposes, and as we have seen recently, the IDF's intelligence sources are hardly infallible, and if their recent press releases are any measure, they are also prone to use propaganda for their own purposes. The combination of the Hamas video and the IDF press releases make for a hard fail unless they are replaced with WP:RS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
	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.	Currently a hard no for sources. I cannot assess the rest of the article until the unreliable sources are replaced with reliable ones. Placing on hold for seven days for the sourcing issue to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] *Failing. No attempt has been made to improve the sourcing for over a fortnight since issues were first raised on the talk page. Without the unreliable sources, it seems unlikely this article could meet the criteria in any case, so I'm failing it on criteria 2b. It is impossible to assess most of the other criteria because so much of it relies on unreliable sources. I strongly recommend revising the sources for the article and seeking reliable ones before renominating the article at GAN. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]