Jump to content

Talk:Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 17:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


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.

Pulling this straight from the B-class review: Two grammar issues: "..reportedly died of gas poisoning from a faulty heater..." he reportedly died, or died of gas poisoning from a supposed (reportedly) faulty heater.... and American Secretary of State should be US Secretary of State.

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.

Any detection by the copvio tool is due to quotes being used.

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).

The timeline of incidents section needs expanded quite a bit in my opinion. It may be better to have a timeline in the form of a graph or similar, and then move away from a list of events that occurred and instead describe them in a little more detail. For example, the Ardeshir Hosseinpour article goes into pretty good detail on what occurred, and pretty much all of that is missed in this article. Let me know if you disagree.

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Reading through the sources, it looked like at least the initial reaction pointed to an Iranian group that may have performed it (among Israel and the US as well). I think it might be good to split up the reactions into more of an initial reactions and another section called something else that describes the allegations at a later time. This point is open for discussion, let me know what you think.


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.

On hold pending 6b.

6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Images of at a minimum the scientists who were assassinated would be useful. The best case would be images of the aftermath of the explosions if you can find any.

7. Overall assessment.
  • Kees08: Thanks for the review. It appears that you are dealing with in a precise manner. Regarding the timeline I also think that graphically showing the points is more interesting. However, I'm not sure if it's right to separate the details. How about reflecting them in a table? On the reaction table, I prefer to separate state and non-state reactions. Also, I have no idea why a separate section is dedicated to Ardeshir Hosseinpour, among others. --Mhhossein talk 13:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
A table will be fine, assuming we are thinking of the same thing. I do not know why he has his own reaction section either; if he has his own, they should all have their own probably. I'll wait to finish the review until some of the previous comments are addressed and we get a little closer to completion. Kees08 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Response to the review

More pics added. --Mhhossein talk 13:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Early closure

No, I saw that. Legobot must be confused, I did not fail it. Kees08 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This was due to the article being moved earlier today, and then moved back. While it was moved, the article name no longer matched the name of this review page, thus a disconnect and the (mistaken) assumption by Legobot that the review had failed because it had disappeared. Now that the article has been moved back, all is well; if it moves again more permanently, the review page will also need to be moved. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Table

I am a little undecided on how that section should look in general. It could probably stay as-is or have the table added. The important thing with that section is that it gets expanded greatly. The article is about assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, but there is only a small list describing the attacks. If the article was titled 'Reactions to assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists,' it would be fine the way it is. Does that make sense? So in general the big thing I care about is a large expansion of the assassinations themselves. Kees08 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I think I can understand you better now! --Mhhossein talk 18:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm dealing with the suggestion. --Mhhossein talk 19:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! I checked it out, definitely going the right direction. Would you be fine if I failed it, then when you resubmit it you can just let me know and I'll take it up right away? I try not to have too many reviews open at once. Let me know if you would rather not. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion

I am going to fail this for now, but when you renominate please ping me and I'll take the review again. I think once you finish up what you are doing it will be very close to a GA. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Kees08: Thanks for your suggestions. I was busy with real life but will keep on the job. I'll ping you when ever I'm done. --Mhhossein talk 12:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Great! Don't be discouraged by the 'fail,' we'll get this thing to GA soon enough. Kees08 (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Problems

I added some content to the article over the last few days, but the more I look at the sources, the more of a mess this article looks. Half the sources in the Israeli section, which cast doubt on the Israeli connection, are long out of date. The more recent sources all but confirm that these killings were carried out by Mossad-trained MEK operatives - several state that the connection is confirmed by intelligence officials within the Obama administration itself - but you wouldn't know that from reading this article.

Some other problems - many of the sources in the article are undated, just containing a "retrieval" date instead, which needs to be fixed. And the first three cited sources all link to the same article - that needs to be fixed too.

I'm really not sure what to do with this article now, because it really needs a rewrite from top to bottom, and I'm not sure I want to get that involved with it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gatoclass I can rewrite it, but almost every single time I edit something Iran related the creator of this article reverts my edit, so if you can review my edits and do an occasional trimming, I can rewrite it starting tomorrow FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Every single change would better be discussed here per Consensus. I would like to ask Gatoclass to list his suggestions here. Mhhossein (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm currently mulling a full rewrite myself. Given that I've now read through all the sources and have a good handle on the content, I'm thinking that perhaps I could manage a full rewrite after all. I'll make a decision on it over the next couple of days. Gatoclass (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
We're waiting to see your improvements. Mhhossein (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass: Regarding your recent revert, please note that "Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement" is repeated 3 times in the article and this is over repeated, I think. As you believe that we need that sentence because "it's Israel's response to the accusations" with which I strongly agree, I only say that we'd resolve the 'over repeating' issue. So, except the lead, we should just have one mention of Israel denial in the body, not more than this. --Mhhossein (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Mhhossein, firstly, information in the lede is supposed to be repeated in the article body so the iteration in the lede can be ignored. Now, you are correct that the information is repeated twice in the body, and as a general rule, I would agree with you strongly that repetition is a bad thing. In this case however, I couldn't see an alternative, because the sentence The Iranian regime itself blamed both Israel and the United States for the assassinations has to be coupled with the responses of both countries or it leaves the reader scratching his head wondering what Israel had to say about this accusation. The later repetition is also necessary because that is the paragraph describing Israel's response in detail. In a case like this, clarity of meaning trumps literary concerns in my view.
But since you've brought it to my attention, I've given the article another slight tweak to change the emphasis of the second sentence, so that the repetition reads more like a reminder of the previously stated fact rather than a new piece of information. Gatoclass (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Gatoclass, I think this version is better. Mhhossein (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassination_of_Iranian_nuclear_scientists/Archive_1&oldid=768176395"