Talk:1982 kidnapping of Iranian diplomats/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HaEr48 (talk · contribs) 08:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking at this. HaEr48 (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Thanks for the review. I'll be answering your questions and dealing with your possible suggestions. Btw, I think it would be much beneficial to take a look at the former review. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• I’ve read the previous GA review. The reviewer raised important points and I believe the article as it stands now have sufficiently addressed these:

• You have included the Motevaselian’s possible IRGC angle. I agree with you that saying “under diplomatic cover” without backing from source would be bordering OR
• Regarding the use of Rai al-Youm. You’ve shown in the WP:RSN thread that RSes like NY Times already use RaY as source, and the passage that reference the RaY article is explicitly attribute to RaY. I believe this is OK.

Other than these, I have other feedback:

• Lead section: include the Motevaselian’s IRGC angle there too
• Background: Add another paragraph about the perpetrator (Phalange), its relation with Israel (this is discussed in the sources including Washington Post and help explain why Israel got accused).
• Also possibly explain how Phalange+Israel and Iran+iits allies are involved in the opposite sides of Lebanese civil war
• “According to US and Israeli sources”: which sources, can we name them?
• “Indeed, he had been chosen to lead … because of his success in crushing the 1979 Kurdish rebellion in Iran”: seems this is attributed to a statement from former IRGC chief Mohsen Rezai, not just US/Israeli source
• “Kidnapping”: explain what they were doing before ending up in the checkpoint, e.g. “On [day], the party was travelling from Damascus to destination xxx”
• “The abducted individuals were reportedly imprisoned “: state whose account this is, because the fate of the prisoners seem controversial
• The fact that they are abducted by Phalange militia in al-Barbareh checkpoints seem to be supported by Western source (WashPo) too. Maybe cite it too to make the article less dependent on Iranian sources
• “Israeli detention speculation” vs “Possible death”. Maybe make the title match, e.g. “Possible Israeli detention” vs “Possible death”
• “He died in what Rai al-Youm claimed”: name the “he” because you named multiple men in the preceding text
• I believe “Political response” should be its own section instead of a subsection of “Fate”
• expand acronyms like IRNA, IRGC at their first mentions
• “Israel agreed to give a report on the fate of the four Iranians “: So was this report given and what did it say? This paragraph leaves it hanging.
• When first naming “Fars News Agency”, state that it is Iranian or Iran-based. Same for Press TV
• Describe Ray al-Youm as “pan-Arabic daily” or something similar, as per NYTimes description
• Reduce unnecessary quotation marks, especially when you’re just using a term in a neutral manner, e.g. "turning point", "an Israel-based prisoners' aid organization", “disappeared”, "a spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister."

• There's still some more unnecessary quotation marks. I'll try to reduce them too.

• “ It was believed that they were then buried at a site where construction later obliterated their graves”: shouldn’t this info be in the “Possible death” section instead? Also, state who believed this
• “the case had turned into a political issue rather than a judicial one”: can you explain further how it turned into a political issue in lebanon?
• “ In a statement, Iran expressed appreciation” mention year (or date) of this statement
• Similarly for “Mohammad Fathali, Iranian Ambassador to Beirut, said that Iran”
• “ Commemoration”: Does the source say that the event is regularly commemorated? Or does it just say that there was once a celebration in Iran/Beirut?
• See WP:SAY. Prefer to use neutral Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to rather than “claimed”, “verified”
• Rather than saying “XX had an interview with YY journalist ZZ and said so-and-so”, just say “XX said so-and-so”, unless the identity of the interviewer is crucial to the statement. This is more concise, to-the-point, and easier to follow.

HaEr48 (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why I did not notice your recent change to this page. I will address the above points ASAP. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Second pass

• "According to IRIB, Elie Hobeika's interview.. " This sentence is too long. Please shorten or split.
• Also provide the full form of IRIB in the first mention.
• I just found out that the Ronen Bergman book provided details not mentioned in the article, especiallly pp.157-159. The author interviewed Robert Hatem, described as "chief hit man" of the Phallange and claimed to be a witness. Among others, he described the torture of the four Iranians, him witnessing the shooting of one of four and his claim that he shot Motevaselian himself. I believe incorporating these accounts to the article would go a long way to balance the strong reliance on Iranian sources.
• Please also see my unstruck comments above.

-- HaEr48 (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Response to the reviewer

• " Motevaselian’s IRGC angle" is included in the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• I tried to add a line or two regarding the Israel-Phalange relations. There are concrete evidences for this relation, however, most of the sources dealing with this issue are not necessarily on the abductions and hence WP:OR is prohibiting. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Can we Ignore talking about how the opposite sides of the Lebanese civil war were formed since it's marginally related to this subject? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Those US and Israeli sources are immediately cited after the sentence. Do we need to repeat them one by one? They are Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, School of Advanced Military Studies, Washington Post and Penn State University Press.--Mhhossein ^talk 15:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think so, unless it "US and Israeli sources" is the wording of an RS. Otherwise, combining multiple source and generalizing them as "US and Israeli sources" might constitute WP:WEASEL. HaEr48 (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to add the sources' names to the article body. How about using "some US and Israeli sources" and determine the sources via a footnote? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Indeed, he had been chosen to lead … " was attributed to 'According to Mohsen Rezaee'. Thanks for being so accurate and precise. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• It's explained what they were doing before the kidnapping. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• The diplomats transferring to the Karantina is not controversial. Other sources have verified that (see this and this). Another citation was added, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Two other citations were added to the al-Barabarah checkpoint portion. ([1] & [2]).
• The other sub-title was altered to address the concern regarding the titles.
• "He" was replaced by "Abu Hesham", as you suggested. "Political response" was changed into a level II subtitle. The acronyms were expanded.
• I found no material on whether the Israeli report was published or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhhossein (talk • contribs)

• Can you find out more? It's kind of a cliffhanger to read that Israel agreed to give a report in 2006, but we have no idea what it says. HaEr48 (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• HaEr48: This source talks about a report by Israel published in 2009. Do you think this is the promised report? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• The origination of both Fars News and Press TV are now mentioned. Pan-Arab daily description was added to Ray al-Youm. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• The concern with the quotation was addressed. The remaining quotes are necessary in my viewpoint. What do you think on this?
• Some sentences were moved to their appropriate sections. I checked the source for the sentence "It was believed... ." It was not determined who believed that and I found it best to attribute the whole sentence to the source.
• It was explained why it has turned into a political issue.
• The date of the two statements was mentioned. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• WP:SAY and the interview issue were resolved. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@HaEr48: I tried to act based on your review. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• @HaEr48: Regarding this edit, I can't say yes and that's why I have attributed that to the IRIB. The author of the source have reflected his understanding of the Hobeika's interview. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What does the source exactly say? It's weird to say that "the interview verifies", usually it's a person or an institution that verifies. Besides, since whether the handing over happened is under dispute, I don't think we should use "verify", because the word assumes that the assertion is true (see WP:SAY). HaEr48 (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Not that weird, sometimes a clue can verify something. However, we can alter the wording per your suggestion. I don't think we had asserted on anything because the whole sentence is attributed to the IRIB, i.e. IRIB says that!--Mhhossein ^talk 13:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do alter the wording. Is there perhaps a better translation to what the IRIB says. HaEr48 (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I changed the word "verified" to "indicate". Does it suffice? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)