Wikipedia:Featured article review/Israel/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 02:25, 23 June 2010 [1].

Israel[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Toolbox
Notified: Talk:Israel(article), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arab world, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Asia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries(projects) User talk:Tariqabjotu, User talk:Gilabrand, User talk:Okedem, User talk:Jayjg, User talk:Telaviv1(top 5 contributors)
The following could also be notified if neccasary since they have commented recently: User talk:Paine Ellsworth, User talk:Ravpapa, User talk:Drork, User talk:Nableezy, User talk:Tiamut, User talk:FormerIP, User talk:JGGardiner, User talk:Dailycare, User talk:Ani medjool, User talk:Noon, User:nsaum75, User talk:Breein1007, User talk:RomaC, User talk:Sean.hoyland, User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy

I am nominating this featured article for review. I originally started kicking the idea around due to an edit war over three neutrality tags regarding how to address the capital. The capital issue has been back and forth for weeks(at least) and the question of how to address the largest city has also popped up. There has been ongoing discussion which so far has been inconclusive. Mediation was attempted but was not accepted. I noticed a handful of other issues while looking into it. My thoughts are that this article is fixable within a couple of weeks, but that a review is necessary to keep it on track and to hold it to the highest standards. Delisting also needs to be a possibility if issues are not taken care of. My concerns are:

  • The edit warring has declined but the tags are still back and forth as seen in the edit history. This conflicts with 1.e (stability). Some people say it is neutral while some say it isn't. This leads to a possible infringement of 1.d. This is an issue that might be better handled by mediation or AE, but it is not OK to be ongoing in an FA. How to handle "capital" in the lead and the infobox is the concern.
    • The first citation is like nothing I have seen, but I assume it is not acceptable. It looks to be a several refs combined with the quote parameter. Someone made this a note instead of an inline citation.Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a sync template on the subsection "Conflicts and peace treaties". It may or may not be needed since I do not see a discussion initiated by the editor who placed it. I think there may be some weight issues with the section since it is in the history section but disregards most history not related to international affairs or the Palestinian issues. It could also be a concern with summary style or prevalence over other aspects. I really don't know on this one and removing the tag might be fine.
  • The original tagger is fine with the tag gone after he included: ""The position of the majority of UN member states is reflected in numerous resolutions which say that any actions taken by Israel to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on Jerusalem are illegal and have no validity whatsoever.". Another editor mentioned clean up o the section on the talk page but it no longer appears to be a major concern.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text is needed[2]
  • Dead links need to be addressed[3]
  • Tagged for citation needed for "Jewish presence in the region dwindled after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE." and again with "Emigration from Israel (yerida) to other countries, primarily the United States and Canada, is described by demographers as modest" (although the later is not clear why since there is a citation needed).
  • Some eyes on inline citations might help. The other day someone attempted to tag (incorrectly) and it was removed instead of being addressed. As soon as someone added a ref it was fine, so a once over by some new eyes might help to ensure nothing was missed elsewhere.
  • The "Transportation" section could use a couple more lines.
  • WP:NBSP. Non breaking spaces are needed in the measurements (figures and abbreviations). Cptnono (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Km->mi conversionsCptnono (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor ref clean up (Title case, date format, pages, link/not to link work and publishers, bare refs, etc) Cptnono (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing here that warrants a review. Dead links can always occur. I don't know what you mean by alt text, since your link doesn't work. The sync template seems meaningless to me, and I will remove it, as no one has explained it. There will always be some conflict, but the mere placement or removal of a tag are not grounds for de-listing. Before opening a review, please raise these points on the talk page, or fix them by yourself - why is this the first time I see mention of dead-links or alt text? Even FAs require some maintenance. okedem (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only obvious issues I can see are that it's overlinked, has 13 dead links, and needs alt text. That could all be fixed without bringing it to FAR. If the content has deteriorated, it could be restored to the version that was promoted. [4] SlimVirgin TALK contribs 15:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed a few dead links, and added some refs and tweaks, and removed some of the more obvious low-value blue. I'd like to do more, but the text is full of citation templates, so I won't be able to copy edit it. It's very slow to load for the same reason. I'd also like to add here that there are/were dead link tags going back to October 2008, which shouldn't really be happening on an FA. The people who wrote and nominated it might want to consider increasing their maintenance of it. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually was the one who proposed we focus on the lead which went from maybe working to strong opposes within the last couple f days with editwarring on the tags still continuing. I also brought up the first citation, the sync tag, and transportation on the talk page. The point of this FAR is not to have it demoted. I will make a effort myself in keeping it FA but desisting it should be a an option if improvements are not made. I added some image descriptions just now and will grab some of the alt text.Cptnono (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image problems
  • (ec) Sorry, it's on a template, which is why it didn't show up in search. Dovi uploaded File:Israel-flag01.jpg in 2006, and the Flickr upload is 2009, [5] so it looks as though they took it from us. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked the Flickr uploader to change licence, and he's done that. Seems he was involved in taking the image. [6] SlimVirgin TALK contribs 11:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Herzl-balcony.jpg. Incorrect license. The picture was taken in Switzerland, not in the EU. It is in fact a doctored version of this image taken from the Bettmann archive, which is for sale. No evidence of first publication. No evidence that the image is in the public domain.
  • I was going to add these but I don't know exactly what they are. Is anyone familiar with what mountains these are or what Dargot is?Cptnono (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Figured it out. Adding now.Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source says that the restrictions are "undetermined" and does not say that it is a US government work. How do you know that the tag is correct? DrKiernan (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. We don't. I have poked around the page but am not coming up with anything that will hep. Delete this one? Follow-up: I have nominated this for deletion at commons. The lack of a author made it to big of a question mark.Cptnono (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it is now back. It needs to be removed.Cptnono (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see GNU and Sharealike 3.0. Am I not understanding correctly?Cptnono (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The copyright owner of the image is Michael Mass, but there is no evidence that he has given permission for his image to be uploaded and used here under a free license. We need permission from the copyright owner, perhaps sent by OTRS or to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. DrKiernan (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. I'll shoot a message over to the uploader.Cptnono (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up: OTRS was successful. Cptnono (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The external links should be trimmed, in particular the government links need not be duplicated. Some effort should be made to trim the page as a whole, currently the download time is very long, which reduces accessibility for people on slow connections/older computers/less advanced countries. DrKiernan (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the eternal links section is too long. It comes across slightly bloated with or without the page loading time. The external links I would remove are: The maps section (keep Wikipedia Atlas), Media section, and maybe a few others. Should the Hebrew cites be relinked to their English versions?Cptnono (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made an additional inquiry on the talk page about this. I will more than likely remove a handful if there is not a response.Cptnono (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the issues here are major or warranting an FAR. Aside from the capital point, none of these have gotten any attention, including from you, on the talk page.

  • I'm not sure anyone has a clue about what the sync tag is there for. Recently, someone inquired about it, but I don't think there was a definitive answer. It should probably just be removed because no one has explained its significance.
  • Okay, alt text, something that wasn't part of FA criteria two years ago, is needed. So fix it.
  • Yes, dead links need to be fixed. Not that difficult.
  • The thing about the two citations is a bit pedantic. FAs aren't automatically protected from further edits. Nothing stops someone from adding unsourced information or tagging sentences with citation tags. Surely, it would have been a bit less drastic for you to, again, just fix it or at least say "maybe we should take care of X" on the talk page.
  • The "Transportation" section could use a couple more lines. Okay... and why is this part of your FAR rationale?

Back to the capital issue: the capital issue will never be resolved to everyone's full satisfaction, but I think if there is an opportunity of reaching a relative peace, it is here already. The FAR is merely a distraction to a discussion that for the most part was going quite well. Unfortunately, I fear it will stymie the surprising amount of progress made over the last week with this review turning into yet another debate over the capital issue, but with the article's FA status used as leverage. The capital point is so minor a point to an article about an entire country that it should not be source of this article's downfall. -- tariqabjotu 17:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment One of the people notified as a primary author is topic-banned from IP conflict articles. They are therefore preumably unable to comment here. Do people have suggestions on how to handle this?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Or instead of arguing about bringing it to FAR you can start fixing it. Edit warring and unfulfilled criteria means it needs to be fixed. It would not pass FA right now if nominated as is. There is really nothing left to say about that.
    • In regards to someone being topic banned: There are plenty of people already involved and I doubt one less person will prevent the article from receiving an appropriate review.Cptnono (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And activity on improving other aspects of the article not related to the capital issue has spiked since opening this review. Nice work on stepping it up.Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I think if there is an abuse of process, it should be noted. Yes, people are fixing things, but I think that's primarily because none of these points have ever been mentioned before. First time they're mentioned, first time they're fixed. -- tariqabjotu 04:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said three times now, I mentioned several of the things. I didn't notice the alt text and dead links until using the toolbox above which is why I specifically mentioned I found other things. I don't think I have ever seen so much resistance to improving an article before. You should be embracing this opportunity. We won't even have to worry about delisting it if everything works out.Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need an FAR to improve the article, and to claim it's "an opportunity" is absurd. If there are issues - use the talk page or fix them yourself. This isn't the way to do things. okedem (talk) 06:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently we did. It is turning out just fine. I also do think it should be delisted if edit warring continues. think it should be discussed and considered if other clean up doesn't happen. It isn't a personal thing or "punishment" as someone alluded to. It is simply not FA and needs to be made so or should have the star for being the best of the best removed. We'll see what is up at the appropriate time. Right now you should focus on improving the article instead of being upset about it since we aren't even to the delist/keep stage.Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't boss people around. Criteria for FAs change (like for alt text), and links die. Once you bothered raising these issues, they were quickly fixed, by several users, myself among them. This is what article talk pages are for, and it's a shame you didn't use it before starting this whole procedure. okedem (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not bossing anyone around. I did use the talk page. The problems weren't resolved. Being angry about it doesn't fix the article. It also isn't necessary. Reviewing an article to see if it is still FA is a good thing. People should stop being offended by something that is not designed to be negative. Cptnono (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This issue was fixed. okedem (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment
    • I noticed today that someone updated the number of satellites Israel has launched without updating the reference. I fact tagged this in expectation that the accurate number should be confirmable. I think people should use this FAR as opportunity to check through other statistics that are likely to have grown since the initial FAC to ensure that the latest available statistics from reliable sources are used.
    • Something that I raised some months ago was the claims of differences instatus of various ethnic groups. ISTR that Okedem said that Shas exagerrate differences between Ashkhenazi and Haredi Jews. I would however expect an FA to cover this and other claims of disadvantages suffered by Arabs and Ethiopian Jews using reliable sociological sources to reflext the real situation rather than the claims of oliticians ne way or the other.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I notice this edit] today. The editor has made a good faith change of Israel's GDP ranking from 44th to 42nd to match that shown in the wikilinked table of rankings. They did not change the reference. In the mean time the linked page has changed to show Israel as 41st. The description in our footnote is that the referenced page shows the rankings for 2006. However, the page now changed to 2008. Im prepared ot make the edit to the page to match these things up. However unless someone indicates that they are checking through all such similar links are up to date then I am going to vote delist' on the grounds that the evidence is that the referencing of data is steadily degrading due to edits that fail to upgrade the references at the same time as the fact is changed.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the major issue at stake here is criterion 1D:neutrality with regard to the claim in the lead, that Jerusalem is the capital city with no qualifications presented for this highly contentious point. Here the article isn't asserting facts about opinions as required by WP:NPOV, it's asserting Israel's claim to the city which is a clear violation. This has been discussed on the talk page, for a very long time, but no solution has been forthcoming. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it were to assert the claim, it would say "Jerusalem is the rightfully the capital, as it will always be, because it belongs to the Jews". It says "Jerusalem is the capital" based on the definition of the word "capital", as seat of government. Since Jerusalem fulfills this role for Israel, it's the capital. Also, plenty of sources call it the capital; many don't even mention the dispute in a single word, whereas we have a long and detailed footnote. okedem (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okedem, thanks for underlining exactly the editing attitude that is at the core of the problem. Concerning your point, it would make sense if you hadn't already opposed replacing "capital" with "seat of government" in the article. That the capital status is rejected universally outside of Israel is eminently verifiable (it needn't be mentioned by every source to be so) and we also have reliable sources saying explicitly that the issue is a major controversy, so per WP:LEAD we have no choice but to mention it in the lead. That, as mentioned above, is my issue with this article and the FA criteria (or Wiki criteria overall, since NPOV is a core policy that also non-FAs must comply with). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your conclusion doesn't follow your argument. I oppose "seat of government" because our standard terminology for country articles is "capital". Everything about Israel is a "major controversy". Israel itself is a "major controversy". However, we'd like to have an article about the country, not the conflict; Israel is an actual country, where people live and work. Despite the view from outside, there's more to it than the conflict, and we can't turn every article about Israel into a conflict article.
I remind you that you have failed to present a single source explaining how international recognition is important in any way for a city's status as capital. You have failed to contradict the simple definition of capital as "seat of government". We are not the official UN encyclopedia, and so their position, or the positions of various governments, are of little importance.
As I've shown, a multitude of respectable sources have no difficulty simply naming Jerusalem the capital, so it seems the importance of this is much less than you claim. okedem (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okedem, repeating those talking points doesn't make them any more relevant. You can find answers to them from my comment immediately preceding yours (timestamp 13:14). Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I can find no sources there, and no meaningful replies. okedem (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Israel, Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Capital (proclaimed) Jerusalem; the city’s capital status has not received wide international recognition." We must have something like this in the lead and in the infobox. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the one source some people keep presenting, even though it's clearly in the minority, with so many sources using different phrasings. Britannica seems to be the most extreme of all sources presented. Just a few examples - Columbia Encyclopedia, Merriam-Webster's collegiate encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa all simply say it's the capital. Many more are sources are reported in the link. okedem (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The EB is highly regarded, probably the most highly regarded of the standard encyclopaedias, which is why I cited it, and it's very far from being in the minority. The lead and the infobox have to be neutral. I realize that's difficult with this article, but the Jerusalem issue is a very basic point. You're not doing the article's status any favours, Okedem, to be frank. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okedem, as you know over 40 sources have been presented, that you choose to repeatedly pretend that you've forgotten about them once more underlines the editing attitude that's the root problem here. --Dailycare (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, some 40 links were presented, most of them news articles about the conflict (naturally highlighting the dispute over Jerusalem), with some official government positions (like the EU position on Jerusalem). Not a single source was presented to show that lack of recognition means it's not the capital; not a single source to show that recognition is in any way relevant to a capital status; not a single source that says that if a city doesn't have recognition, it's not really the capital.
In contrast, plenty of sources were shown defining "capital" as seat of government, and plenty of sources simply state Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. These are not Israeli sources, but general, respectable sources, who don't have any problem saying Jerusalem is the capital. This fact alone nullifies your claim, as if calling Jerusalem the capital is just "asserting Israel's claim to the city". If Oxford, Merriam Webster and Columbia, among many others, can say it - we can too. okedem (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, I already explained the infobox and the fact that the general consensus on that was a change in the footnote format. Why are you continuing to push for more? Nobody seems to demand that but you; that matter is settled, insofar as everyone else is concerned. We are not going to change things solely because of you. -- tariqabjotu 22:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see evidence that it has been dealt with. People are still posting here, apparently concerned, and the lead still doesn't say that the status of Jerusalem is disputed; adding a footnote really isn't enough. I urge you to stop the hostile responses, Tariq, and the attempts to personalize, which is what you did on talk when I asked there too. I came here to try to help the article retain its status. Yours is an odd way to respond to that, I must say. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People are still posting here... about the infobox? No, check again; the only person who has brought up the infobox since the footnote was changed on February 5 is you. The lead? Perhaps. The infobox? No, it seems to be settled; quit raising the issue. Yes, it's personal, if that's what you call talking to you. What do you expect me to do? Say Hey everyone, stop talking about the infobox when it's only you talking about it? Please... -- tariqabjotu 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About the lead. People would like to see the issue dealt with in the lead. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... so... what's the problem again? I said I already explained the infobox, and you told me to stop the hostile responses. First, if you think anything I have said to you in this thread is hostile, you're in the wrong area of Wikipedia; far more hostile things have been said in discussions on Israel-Palestine articles (specifically far more hostile things have been said that I consider well within the realm of civility). Second, again, please read what other people have said (and this sub-thread is further exemplifying the point), and instead of furthering the capital debate here (because it's really over-played now), I think it would be better if you tried implementing one of the options under Talk:Israel#On the Table. At least they have gotten broad levels of support from both "sides" (for lack of a better term). As you'll also see there, your idea of having something about non-recognition in the lead is far from original, but I'll allow you to still be the hero by being the one who implements a solution. -- tariqabjotu 23:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must apologize to Cptnono for saying he ought to have sorted things out on the talk page instead of bringing this to FAR. :-S SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated. I am on the "side" that is wary of giving it too much weight. Regardless, the reverting needs to stop (it has reduced to almost nothing over the last few days). A resolution needs to be found over there to keep the tags off. Hopefully, a solution can be found (maybe what we have at the time I'm typing this) that most people consider inline with Wikipedia's neutrality standards. The question has come up many times since 2003 so it would be great to reduce the likelihood of a future fire.Cptnono (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, it was obvious you didn't want to push the button -- perhaps because I'm too "hostile" -- so, in light of Talk:Israel#On the Table, I changed the lead sentence myself. -- tariqabjotu 16:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support Tariqabjotu's edit of the lead. Okedem, you appear to be operating under an assumption that there would exist a wiki policy according to which a source can't be used if it's actually about the topic being sourced. That this is not the case is putting it mildly. I again refer you to my comment above (timestamp 13:14). --Dailycare (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you do not seem to appreciate that I'm not contesting the fact (non-recognition), but the relative importance of the fact. Specifically, that recognition is generally important for a capital. That, you have not been able to show. Following Tariq's edit - is this the end of it, as far as you're concerned? okedem (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, your argument is, as discussed on talk:israel, not relevant to the content issue. As I explained in my edit (timestamp 13:14) what decides whether the material goes in the lead is simple: 1) is it reliably sourced? (yes) and 2) is it a notable controversy (yes). To this may be added 3) is it a notable opinion (yes, held by the UN and every country except Israel). Any musings on "true capitalness" are frankly a waste of time here, although they may be interesting in other contexts. As to your question, indeed as discussed on talk:israel I'm OK with the present wording following Tariqabjotu's edit, and won't raise the issue or support other editors raising it for a long while. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) How are things coming on this? Do those editors who supported the FAR still have issues they would like to see resolved? Dana boomer (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is better for the most part. Images and sources could still use some work but the edit warring has stopped. Cptnono (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text is present (thanks) but has some problems. I just now fixed some of these, but alt text is still missing for File:Coat of arms of Israel.svg, File:LocationIsrael.svg, File:Israel districts numbered.png, File:Is-wb-gs-gh v3.png, File:Temple Mount Western Wall on Shabbat by David Shankbone.jpg, File:Tabor068.jpg, File:Israeli sign.png, File:Israel Philharmonic Orchestra.jpg, File:Israel - Jerusalem - Shrine of the Book.jpg and File:Galfridman.jpg. Can someone please fix this? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criterion of concern include stability, neutrality, references and image licensing. Dana boomer (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What??? Is this really how FAR/FARC is done? The FAR basically started as a veiled attempt to rush a conclusion on the capital issue. It's been more than five weeks, and most objections -- all pretty minor -- have been addressed; heck, even that capital issue, which has been debated for years, has been resolved. Most everyone has either completely lost interest in the FAR and/or moved on to other things. But, wait! Some images don't have alt text! Oh, c'mon; this is a complete joke that warrants even less attention than I've given here. -- tariqabjotu 21:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tariq, this article was not moved to FARC because I believed it needed to be delisted. It was moved here because, as you say, the FAR had stalled. It had not been made unmistakably clear that everyone believed the article should be kept as a FA, and so it needed to be moved here so that definite declarations could be made. Please also note that alt text has been removed (at least for now) from the FA criteria. Dana boomer (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would appreciate it if you did not make accusations like that Tariqabjotu. If you notice the result of the edit warring was a solution that I was not a big fan of (it is fine though). At this point I completely don't know what the next step is. Another editor has started a separate FAR on the article [8] (we don't know what happened) with several points of interest. These might be better fixed on talk since the amount of thoroughness lacking should not necessarily prevent it from keeping its status. A couple of the refs still need formatting. As mentioned above, the Truman picture is still a potential copyright violation. A few dead links still. I am happy to see the edit warring finished and one of the editors that told me off up above has been rocking it according to the history so it is much better. Not perfect but there is always room for improvement.Cptnono (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like such a dummy. I couldn't figure out where the page was but it says "talk" right up top.Cptnono (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked all the links, and fixed any dead links I could find. In any article with such a large number of links, this or that link are bound to drop dead at some point, and this should have no effect on FA status. Now, instead of complaining about a couple of mis-formatted refs or missing alt text, you could spend the same amount of time just fixing them. okedem (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I started trying to fix the article but all of the smack talk and edit warring really impacted any enthusiasm. So this is isn't complaining but gauging if it still meets the standards for FA. Sorry you still take offense to it since that wasn't the intention. Follow-up: Sources are still in issue as another editor mentioned above. Academy Awards were modified without a source, Jewish Virtual Library is used (I am under the impression that another editor recently took that to a noticeboard, and another Wikipeida is even used as a reference. I won't vote delist due to the recent accusations but these and similar sourcing issues need to be tackled.Cptnono (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every article has unsourced changes, and it always takes a bit before someone fixes it. In this case you're talking about something that happened less than 48 hours ago, and you still bring it up as an "accusation". The "smack talk" and "edit warring" certainly shouldn't have prevented you from fixed formatting issues, or alt text.
Now, to the point - I added a source for Academy awards, and added alt text (even though it's not a criterion now, apparently). I see no problem with JVL being used as a source - it's not used for anything contentious anyway. I don't know where another Wikipedia is used as a source - if you want to improve the article, the very least you could do it give actual details for your claims. okedem (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been almost a week, and no details regarding the new supposed problems have been given. I request that this review be closed, as the article fulfills all criteria. okedem (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And they atill aren't fixed. The Truman image is still used even afer removing it. References are still not up to par. Run the error check on the citation toolbar thingy if you use it. Here are a few: 103 (ref to Wikipedia article), 130 (in ref tags but is not a ref. Is it to be included w/ a ref?), 140 (bare), 199 (bare url going to the Gulfstream company). And I did go through after starting this with some edits to the refs and images. Stop asserting that I haven't.Cptnono (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A week ago I asked you for details about these problems, and got nothing but silence. I have ran the error check multiple times, which is how I fixed a whole lot of dead links. Surprisingly, I'm only human, and can't find everything alone. When you find something, you can either fix it yourself (took me about 20 seconds to fix the Wikipedia link issue, for instance), or at the very least explain where the problem is, so someone else can fix it. To just say "Wikipedia is used as a source somewhere" is extremely unhelpful; this article has 312 references, you know. The Truman picture has not been deleted, so there's no reason not to use it (it's used on dozens of other pages as well). If and when it is deleted, we'll have to replace it. Anyway, if I find something else, I'll place it instead. This is not a serious issue. Update: I've replaced that picture, so the issue is moot.
Ref 130 is a footnote (those also use ref tags, despite not being refs), but I've added a source. Ref 199 goes to the Gulfstream company website - because it talks about one of their aircraft. Anyway, I replaced that link with one slightly more informative, in my view.
Now, if you find other problems, and would like to improve the article, please share the (detailed) information here, or on the article's talk page. Otherwise, let's end this procedure. A few dead links or misformatted refs are no grounds for FA status removal. Pick any FA of comparable size and ref number, and you'll find a similar number of problems (I'm saying this because I have just performed this little exercise, though I've not been able to find an FA with quite this many references). okedem (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formats of links are not in my view serious defects and they are fixable. The major rub in this FAR as far as FA criteria were concerned was the NPOV issue relating to Jerusalem as the "capital", concerning which there now is an agreement. The editing attitude around this article is of course unchanged, which probably will cause problems in the future but the editing attitude of concerned editors is not a FA criterion issue until it results in a specific NPOV problem. This is a "Keep FA status" comment. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Two obvious outstanding problems are the quality of sourcing and the prose. On the sourcing first of all, the Encyclopedia Britannica is cited six times, and Encarta three times. The article should be relying on high quality secondary sources, not tertiary sources like Encarta and Britannica. A few random examples of where the prose is weak:
  • From Antiquity: "Nevertheless, a continuous Jewish presence in the Land of Israel remained, with the Jewish religious centre moving to Galilee, establishing itself in Tiberias.[33] The Mishnah and part of the Talmud were composed during this period. At the beginning of the 12th century there were still about fifty Jewish families in that city." What city?
  • From Zionism and the British Mandate: "During the 16th century communities struck roots in the Four Holy Cities ...". You don't "strike" roots, you take root.
  • From Zionism and the British Mandate: "By the end of World War II the Jewish population of Palestine had increased to 33%." To 33% of of what? Or should that be "by 33%"?
Fixed. Frederico1234 (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Independence and first years: "In 1956, Israel joined a secret alliance with the Great Britain and France".
  • From Geography and climate: "The Israeli Coastal Plain on the shores of the Mediterranean is home to seventy percent ...". Used "%" in the example I gave above. Which is it to be? "Percent" or "%"?
  • From Occupied territories: "Inner control of Gaza is in the hands of the Hamas government." What does "inner control" mean?

In short, this article needs a lot less bickering over the minutiae and a lot more looking at the broader picture. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sourcing - out of 312 refs (way more than most FAs, it seems), you mention 9 cites of which you disapprove. I know of no policy saying use of tertiary sources is forbidden, or that their use is problematic for FAs. In the places I checked, those sources are used for very general background points, nothing really contentious or not in the consensus.
  • Prose:
    • "What city"? Tiberias, the city mentioned a sentence before.
    • Actually, an idea "takes root"; "struck root" is the correct usage in this context. See, for example, [9] or [10].
    • "33%" - Obviously, 33% of the total population (Jews and non-Jews). I see no problem here; to say "33% of the total population of Palestine" would be repetitious.
    • "percent" or "%" - nitpicking.
    • "inner" - changed to "internal". As in - runs the internal affairs, though borders and the likes are controlled by others (Israel and Egypt).
okedem (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep listed - Every single article on Wikipedia can be improved, and that includes all FAs. Sourcing can always be better, the prose can always be polished. Sometimes prose which seems perfect to one, can appear clunky to another. The issues raised here ranged from minor to irrelevant, and this whole page feels like nitpicking. A featured article is not, and cannot be, perfect. Featured articles are the highest class here, the best of what the site offers; the best is relative, and is not an absolute standard. "Israel" is easily one of the best articles on Wikipedia, partly due to the constant (political) attention it receives. okedem (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest that you take off your rose-tinted spectacles, and actually look at the article critically. Frankly I wouldn't even pass it at GAN in its present state, much less consider it "one of the best articles on wikipedia". I gave you a few examples of the kinds of things that need attention above, and there are many more. For instance, do you really think that insisting that a sentence such as "The Israel Defense Forces has been involved in several major wars and border conflicts ..." is fixed is merely "nitpicking"? If this article was at FAC instead of FAR it would have been slated long ago. It needs fixing, not excusing, and it needs to conform to the MoS, which it does not. If you can't fix it, and it appears that you can't, then it needs delisting pronto. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with you. "it appears that you can't" - That's just insulting. If you look at the article's history, you'll see that I put in countless hours of work here, fixing everything from sources to formatting to images. I did my best to address any issue raised here, as you can plainly see from the above discussion. I've also specifically addressed every point you raised here, even though I disagreed with you on some of them. okedem (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist unless prose problems can be addressed, and tertiary source references replaced. Malleus has only scratched the surface:
  • Conflicts and peace treaties: "An internal inquiry exonerated the government of responsibility for the war..." This makes no sense to a lay reader. If there is a declared war, no-one needs to be "exonerated of responsibility" for it. There may be inquiries into legality of actions, or political debates about the war's prosecution. What is meant here?
  • same section: "agreed to enter negotiations over an autonomy for Palestinians across the Green Line." this phrase makes no sense.
  • same section: "On June 7, 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in Operation Opera, disabling it. Israeli intelligence had suspected Iraq was intending to use it for weapons development." no reference, and not clear why this is included in this top-level article.
  • same section: "more than a thousand people were killed in the ensuing violence, much of which was internal Palestinian violence." repetition of the word violence, and in any case, what is meant by "internal Palestinian violence"? clashes between Palestinians? violence within Palestinian territories?
  • same section: "At the end of the 1990s, Israel, under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu," proably need to have been told in the preceding sentence that Netanyahu became / was elected (which?) PM after Rabin's assassination.
  • same section: "Despite neither the Qassam launchings..." Who or what is Qassam? It hasn't previously been mentioned.

That is just a selection from a single section. A separate comment: I found the Religion section strangely brief and empty, when one considers the depth of religious diversity, history and indeed conflict in this country. Very wierd not having a single reference in the material about Jerusalem (and yet three whole sentences, with refs, about Baha'i), no mention of pilgrimage, prayer at the wall... I know one should not have too much detail in a top-level article, but one should also weight things according to their importance in the context of the article subject, and we are talking about Israel here. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • "An internal inquiry..." - This makes perfect sense when you read the sentence before it ("Egyptian and Syrian armies launched a surprise attack against Israel... Israel successfully repelling Egyptian and Syrian forces but suffering great losses"). I've clarified, however.
    • "...Green Line" - rephrased.
    • "Operation Opera" - Added source. A very important point in Israel's history, with the first long-range force projection, and an important precedent for all current discussions of a possible Israeli attack in Iran.
    • "Netanyahu" - elected in a special election, several months after Rabin's assassination (Peres was PM in the interim). I don't think this is a major point, and as Rabin's assassination is mentioned in the sentence before, there's no need to repeat it.
    • "Qassam" - You're right; also, there's no need for the name of the thing anyway. Fixed.
    • I'll address the other points later. okedem (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I raised a couple of points above and I want to clarify where we have reached on these.
  • #One was that I had noticed that a number of statistics had changed and that when some people had updated them, they didn't change the references. I know Okedem has done some work around this, but I don't know exactly what he has done. If it hasn't been fully addressed this would be a delist issue for me, but it might have been. Now addressed per Okedem comment and AGF.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I also think that there should be some reference to various claimed inequalities between different demographic group. I don't think it should be hard to identify some sort of sociological research on this matter which would give basic facts. I haven't seen a response to my comment on this. It would also be useful if some previously uninvolved editors could comment on my view that this should be included, as this has been a subject of discussion between Okedem and myself in the past.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, when you raised the statistics issue a while back, I went over every single number in the article, and made sure it's properly sourced. Hopefully, I didn't miss anything. (Just to clarify my position, as you mentioned me - I don't think the inequality claims have any place in the main article; their importance isn't that high. To properly address the issue, one would have to detail the claims, the facts, and the various possible reasons. This would be a long discussion, and would burden the article. Perhaps I'm being pessimistic - if someone can come up with a fair, concise piece about this, I won't object). okedem (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is work coming on all of the above comments? The objections by two experienced FA writers and reviewers (Malleus and Hamiltonstone) need to be addressed before this article can be kept... The editors should feel free to bring in help to resolve the prose concerns. Dana boomer (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with the level of importance the editors ascribe to the issues raised (and outright reject some of them), I accept that some things can be improved. If you check out the edit history there you'll see that a lot of work has been done in the last few days, and there's more to come. I'll post here when it seems we're done with this round of improvements. okedem (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold - As there seems to still be significant improvements being done to address FAR concerns. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 17:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the time this is taking. I'm mostly alone in this, I'm afraid, so work is progressing rather slowly. I do think I've made significant improvements so far.
I think all the citations are okay now, but seeing as there are 336 of them, please let me know if you see something I missed.
According to WP:DASH, em-dashes should not be spaced.
Can you provide some examples of over-linking? I don't see any abundance of irrelevant links, but maybe I'm just missing them. okedem (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some links *look* like overlinks b/c they are in fact Easter eggs. For example, socialist links to Labor Zionism. By itself, a link to what is expected by looking at that linked word, would be an overlink. But my question is this; why link to that word at all if you are not going to spell it out in the prose? I like more explicit linking than that. --mav (reviews needed) 01:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okedem, how is work coming along on this? Please feel free to ping the editors who have commented above to ask them to revisit once you feel you have addressed or responded to their concerns. Dana boomer (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Additional closing note - This article is being delisted because the main editor has not responded to requests for updates in over a week, and the article still has basic problems, as well as two outstanding delist declarations. There are still numerous dead links (see the link checker tool) that were not used as convenience links, meaning the information was therefore essentially unreferenced, and there is currently edit warring happening on the page. As this article has been at FAR for over four months and still does not conform to current FA criteria, it is being delisted. When and if the article's editors feel that it has been brought back to FA status, it may be immediately taken to FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Israel/archive1&oldid=1078811278"