Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ziad Jarrah/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ziad Jarrah[edit]

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary[edit]

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/to do. Sandy 22:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While this was considered quality work back when it was declared a featured article back in 2004, two years later, it no longer meets the standards. While there are probably more problems, the two most pressing issues involve images and citations. There are too many photographs of him — they're claimed as fair use and they lack rationales. I don't want to add rationales until we figure out which images to keep. As for the citation, there are zero inline citations. We should get to work on getting this article to current standards. —this is messedrocker (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see the images saved and the FA status removed, than vice versa - given his personal prominence, but I agree wholeheartedly with you about the need to fix up inline citations. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily saying that the FA status should be removed, and that the images should go away. What I mean to say is that we should upgrade this article to current standards and see if we really need all these pictures (if we do, that's fine). —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the article has inline citations, they are just formatted as embedded external links. I agree that there are too many fair use images. Of these four images: Image:Young jarrah.jpg, Image:07-hijackers-inside.jpg, Image:Jarrah-2000-Flying-Florida.jpg, Image:Ziad-Gym-ePass.jpg, only one is needed. The others don't add anything new to validate a fair use claim. Pagrashtak 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refs converted, but there aren't many. Sandy 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC: still not well-referenced, not much activity towards improving the article. Sandy 22:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree: do the contributors still care about it?
Could do with a run-through to fix awkward expressions like: "He got pulled over ..." (space missing, too); "After looking in several countries,.." and many more. Consistently abbreviate "United States"? Tony 05:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I agree that it needs to be cited inline. I wrote most of the article, but it was a while ago, and I would need to go through my sources to determine what came from where. (90% of it came from the 9/11 report.) I don't know that all the images are necessary, strictly speaking, but I'm not sure they should be removed. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 02:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are images (3) and citations (1c). Marskell 15:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Still lacking inline citations. Sandy 10:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Strike, now referenced. Sandy 17:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was asked to take a second look. I can take a closer look when I'm home next week, but the first cite I encounter is:
      • The Wall Street Journal, 9/18/2001
    • which is not adequate. Is there an article name, author, etc? It appears that more work on citations is needed, and several of the citations are only URLs. Sandy 18:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just added that source today. Unfortunately, that's all I know, and I can't get to the WSJ achives online. I'll go to my library Monday. I went thru the microfiche at the library and corrected that reference. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The inline citations look better, although some of them need to be expanded (I can find time to do that later today). But, I concur with Tony (see below), and think the prose needs some polishing. Perhaps you can enlist a good copy editor? Sandy 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I volunteer. What parts do you think need help? By the way, Tony's comment (below) was made 2 weeks ago, before any of these changes took place. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure what this footnote refers to: Longman, 2002, pp. 101-02 Sandy 15:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good catch. That was a follow-up ref to an earlier full-ref that was deleted. I fixed it now. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're doing great work. I'm not as good at analyzing prose problems as Tony and others, but here are some random samples I have a hard time with (there's more, these are samples):
                • (The four "to clauses" are hard to get through): In the spring of 1996, Jarrah moved to Germany with his cousin Salim to take a course in German at the University of Greifswald to receive a certificate needed for foreigners who do not speak German to study in Germany.
                • (The passive voice here is hard): Jarrah is claimed to have become an associate of the Hamburg cell, although he is not known to have ever lived with the others, and cannot be confirmed to have known them at this time.
                • (Passive voice and redundancies): In late 1999, Jarrah, Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Said Bahaji, and Ramzi Binalshibh decided to travel(ed) to Chechnya to fight against the Russians. They were convinced by Khalid al-Masri and Mohamedou Ould Slahi (convinced them) at the last minute to change their plans, and instead traveled to Afghanistan to meet with Osama bin Laden and train for terrorist attacks.
              • There are issues like this throughout; the article would be in very fine shape now with a thorough copyedit. Sandy 17:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding these. They have been fixed. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Remove Even after the FAR, there doesn't seem to be much progress on cleaning it up per current standards. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove.. Weak keep—it's improved. Not much has been done. Still problems in the writing. Tony 01:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Much more has now been done. Do you still find problems in the writing? If so, where?
  • Keep. There are now inline citations. Progress is being made. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I tried to help this article. I converted the table to infobox biography to help it conform to the standard of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, as required by WP:WIAFA part (2), and removed a fair use image, since there was a public domain alternative, as required by WP:WIAFA part (3). Both of these changes were reverted. I don't see how this article can remain featured while other editors are actively working against the featured guidelines. Pagrashtak 17:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your changes were appreciated, and were not reverted. Check the history. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm replying on my talk page. Long story short, they we reverted and re-reverted. I'll give it another look in a second. Pagrashtak 20:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quadell seems to be making progress on the article and another user re-removed (I know, it's not a word!) the image, so I'm striking my remove vote for now. Pagrashtak 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — Progress is being made, however there are still potential problems. For one, Image:Ziad-Gym-ePass.jpg and Image:07-hijackers-inside.jpg don't seem to be relevant to the article, and they're unfree. I suggest we get rid of them. Another thing is that the lead isn't very long. However, I'll try to do my best to improve the citations, and possibly the lead. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree about the images. I'll remove them, but we need to keep watch on them. Sherurcij uploaded some of these pictures, and seems to quickly remove any tags I put on the images to identify problems. I tagged the gym pass as having no source, and Sherurcij seems to think that adding the word "immediate" to the image solves that problem. Pagrashtak 20:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 'CommentI'm unsure how Image:07-hijackers-inside.jpg is not relevant, since it is a photograph of one of the chief pieces of evidence against Jarrah, him appearing with other hijackers months before the attack. It's non-free since it is amateur video, but it falls well within the grounds of Fair Use, as you may have noticed it was used by all media outlets. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 14:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "Notes" section seems nothing more than a dumping ground for information editors can't be bothered to intertwine into the article - this needs to be addressed. LuciferMorgan 23:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Refs section is much improved. Keep up the good work all editors working to save this article's FA.
    • If not already clear, this should be kept open a bit even if already passed deadline. I've started a bit of ce'ing myself (there are two fact requests now) and I don't see why this can't keep status with a bit more work. Marskell 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status I will close this as keep as soon as the objections (which seem to be satisifed) are striken. Joelito (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that, laborious as it might be, individual citations from the 9/11 report should be placed in the article; we should not have to rely on a blanket "unsourced statements are from X." At the same time, numerous other sources have been dug up and I think there are no serious copy issues. A weak keep I suppose, but a keep nonetheless. Marskell 18:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Ziad_Jarrah/archive1&oldid=1138478140"