Talk:Robin Raphel

Discussion Panel of Robin Raphel article re-development

@Nyttend:
@FreeRangeFrog:
@CorporateM:
I have today inserted a re-developed article for the subject, Amb. Robin Raphel, whose stages of re-development can be tracked at [1]. The original article was poorly sourced, highly biased and did not meet WP:NPOV standards on any count. The original article was also incomplete in terms of the significance of work done by Amb. Raphel when a careful read of her achievements and controversies is undertaken. Her work and the controversies it generated throughout the past three decades is covered by numerous books, at least three of which I cited in referencing the article. I do not know Ms. Raphel personally, so there is no conflict of interest issue. But I know the history of the period during which she served in critical posts during the mid-1990s, and having been involved integrally in the activities of that period as a private American citizen, I believed my background and knowledge could assist to re-develop the article to a better standard of encyclopedic entry. I welcome any editorial comments and your review of the work done here in this Discussion panel section, or at my talk page. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Thargor Orlando: Addressing your edit, please see if this reference would work -- it is a book that says the same thing, albeit in slightly different units of calculation. If this is not satisfactory, then would it also not be possible to simply list the Guardian reference without the http link, since that seems not to exist anymore? The data you excerpted is referenced in many locations, but I think the book is the best reference replacement to the original article that cannot be found on its primary site now. Here is the link: Gohari, M. J. (1999). "The Taliban: Ascent to Power". Oxford University Press, p95. Retrieved 2014-04-14.

I removed it only because I couldn't verify the Guardian article and I don't generally trust a word that exists on Rense. If the information can be sourced to that Oxford book, you'll get no pushback from me. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Thargor Orlando: Point taken! It is exactly attributable as I have written it and is in the book on p95. The only thing that needs changing is that instead of writing 1.9 billion cubic feet per day, I guess the author of the book rounded up and wrote 2.0 billion cubic feet per day. Would you like to revert your edit and put in the proper reference above, or shall I do it? --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I took care of the reinserted language and replaced the reference. Saves you some time. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robin Raphel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasuke Sarutobi (talk · contribs) 23:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I have accepted the review nomination for this article, and shall be delivering a summary shortly. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Review prior to federal investigation

Is it reasonably well written? A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Is it factually accurate and verifiable? A. Has an appropriate reference section: B. Citations to reliable sources: A range of reliable sources are cited, including the State Department, books, and major newspapers. C. No original research: Is it broad in its coverage? A. Major aspects: Her career between leaving Tunisia and retiring from the State Department doesn't appear to be addressed in the main prose, only the lede. B. Focused: Sections remain on topic at all times, providing background . §Engaging the Taliban feels a little long, but I feel that a few of the surrounding pieces of information simply need re-ordering to improve flow. Is it neutral? Fair representation without bias: Article addresses both accomplishments and criticisms in a fair and impartial manner, without biased wording. Since federal investigation details have become apparent, article has attracted a number of editors who have changed existing wording in POV ways. Is it stable? No edit wars, etc: Article is stable, and editors have been co-operative in the utmost in the sole discussion necessary. Again, recent details on investigation have drawn a lot of edits to the page in a short space of time. This is likely to continue while further information comes to public knowledge. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Both images are tagged, either as public domain work in one case, and Creative Commons in the other. B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Subject is identified with a photograph in the infobox, and further illustrated with an image appropriate to the section in which it features. Overall: Pass or Fail: Recommendations "... leading Raphel's critics to lay blame on her for coddling the Taliban..." (in §Engaging the Taliban) - I feel that there are better words than 'coddling'; it feels a little too informal and vague for my liking. Could this perhaps be clarified, or if 'coddled' is the word used by critics, quoted? "Her positions raised equal measure of praise and scorn." (in §Engaging the Taliban) - could we have some further detail? Are there any particular quotes from any key figures that would help illustrate this? "Raphel served her full term and left in late June 1997." (in §Ambassador to Tunisia) - this seems to relate to her tenure as Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs. Judging from the infobox, I would take it that August 2000 is the correct date during which she finished her term, but could you confirm, amend, and cite as appropriate? §Engaging the Taliban overall feels like it could flow better, probably just with a slight re-arrangement of the existing text. §AfPak diplomacy has a couple of figures that are uncited, both of which I've tagged to highlight them. As above, her career between leaving Tunisia and leaving the State Department could do with being addressed in the main prose, if only to clarify what positions she held. Criteria 1a and 2c would need further work to confirm, but this is just a matter of course, and I expect that everything will be fine for those. In the meantime, I felt that the providing the rest of the review would allow you to address recommendations made above. If there is anything further you need, please let me know! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC) GA failed Unfortunately, in light of the investigation that has come to light, and the attention that this has drawn to the article, I feel that I have to fail the GA nomination. Please do not be mistaken; this is not a criticism on the subject for being under investigation, but a simple result of the investigation generating attention to the article in a way that would prevent constructive assessment and work. Please feel free to renominate the article at a later date. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC) GA re-opened, placed on hold Discussion with another reviewer and the nominator has convinced me that I was a bit hasty in closing the review. I've re-opened it and placed it on hold for the above issues to be addressed. A couple of other things that have emerged in the last few days: 'Federal investigation' section needs to be moved above 'Personal life' section; 'Personal life' section has had some detail removed, which needs to be restored; 'Engaging and co-operating with the Taliban' needs to be changed back to 'Engaging with the Taliban'; 'Hostility towards India' needs to be changed, perhaps to something like 'Perception within India'. I'll post a fresh review with further points later today. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Review subsequent to federal investigation amendments

Going back to my original comments prior to what was a little of a panicked reaction, my review would be as follows:

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.	I need to have a more thorough read-through, but a quick proof could not find anything significant.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead has begun to sprawl a little. Some tightening up is required, and the citations removed; all information in the lead should be reproduced elsewhere in the article, at which point it should be cited.
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.	Sources are cited with a well-formatted reference list.
	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).	Reliable sources are cited throughout, including the State Department, books, and newspapers' websites
	2c. it contains no original research.	Further checking is required with regards to both the federal investigation, and general cross-checking the cited sources, but information presented appears consistent with checked sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Further detail is needed on Raphel between her time in Tunisia and AfPak.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Sections remain on topic at all times, providing relevant background where needed. §Engaging the Taliban feels a little long, but I feel that a few of the surrounding pieces of information simply need re-ordering to improve flow.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The recent amendments to sections on Raphel's engagement with the Taliban, Pakistan, and India, have lost a prior neutrality.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable, with editorial decisions addressed constructively between contributors.
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.	Both images are tagged, either as public domain work in one case, and Creative Commons in the other.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Subject is identified with a photograph in the infobox, and further illustrated with an image appropriate to the section in which it features.
	7. Overall assessment.

Further suggested amendments

Reviewer's Recommendation	Nominator's Comments
"... leading Raphel's critics to lay blame on her for coddling the Taliban..." (in §Engaging the Taliban) - I feel that there are better words than 'coddling'; it feels a little too informal and vague for my liking. Could this perhaps be clarified, or if 'coddled' is the word used by critics, quoted?
"Her positions raised equal measure of praise and scorn." (in §Engaging the Taliban) - could we have some further detail? Are there any particular quotes from any key figures that would help illustrate this?
"Raphel served her full term and left in late June 1997." (in §Ambassador to Tunisia) - this seems to relate to her tenure as Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs. Judging from the infobox, I would take it that August 2000 is the correct date during which she finished her term, but could you confirm, amend, and cite as appropriate?
§Engaging the Taliban overall feels like it could flow better, probably just with a slight re-arrangement of the existing text.
§AfPak diplomacy has a couple of figures that are uncited, both of which I've tagged to highlight them.
As above, her career between leaving Tunisia and leaving the State Department could do with being addressed in the main prose, if only to clarify what positions she held.

@Mansoor Ijaz: I hope that this provides useful detail for you - I'll leave the article on hold for another seven days so that you have time to address the above. A lot of this may be reiterated, but again, I feel that a lot of my earlier comments still stand. I've built the table from scratch, so it'll wrap correctly once it has some more detail on your side. As always, please let me know if there's anything else that I can do to help. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sasuke Sarutobi: Good morning from Europe. Apologies but I will need a bit more time due to my travel schedule to finish this up. I will start work sometime tomorrow but will need a few days to really manage the various issues properly for your further review. Many thanks, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mansoor Ijaz: That's fine, thank you for letting me know. The week-long period is essentially just so that drive-by nominators do not clog the system with articles that just stay on hold for extended periods, but as you have been addressing several articles within a tight schedule, the duration is not an issue. I'm starting on a copyedit of the article now, so I will work on completing the remaining review tasks ahead of your edits. Again, please let me know if there is anything that I can do to help. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination abandoned?

I don't see a single edit to the article from nominator Mansoor Ijaz since this nomination was opened (indeed, none since last April!), and no edits to the article from reviewer Sasuke Sarutobi since the final edit to this nomination above. At this point, I would advise reinstating the nomination failure; it's been almost a month and a half since the nomination was reopened, and the lack of progress in that time is clear: even minor issues raised like "coddling" (a clear NPOV violation as stated) are still present. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Sincere apologies, but my end of year business commitments simply did not permit the time necessary to return to this topic. I had planned on re-engaging during the break, which for me starts in two days. The amount of work involved in re-editing this article due to recent news as well as the matters raised by the reviewer require a block of thinking time that I just didn't have during the past six weeks. I will sit down and get to work on this during the latter half of the week after I have traveled. Sincerely, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Mansoor Ijaz, I'm glad to read that you're intending to return to the article and address the issues. If there is no activity by the end of the year, of course, we'll have to revisit this. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

We're at over two months since the review opened without work done, and the writer himself noted it would be a good deal of work needed to make the above changes. Due to this I'm closing the review; it can always be renommed once Mansoor returns to actively editing. Wizardman 23:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wizardman and BlueMoonset: I was wondering how to re-open this GA nomination. Mansoor Ijaz asked me for assistance with this, and I addressed the concerns stated in the original review (or at least I think I did!). I know how to nominate an article but I'm not sure how a re-nomination (if it's called that) is performed. Do I simply re-subst the GAN template up top and remove the failed one? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

I've placed a request for the page to be semi-protected until the controversy regarding the counter-intelligence investigation has died down. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

"Hostility towards India"

I don't know enough about Robin Raphel to be sure but it seems that the section titled "Hostility towards India" is not a neutral point of view. 64.134.101.88 (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Last edit summary

In my last edit summary I wrote "if he died on 9/9, how could be a problem after 9/11" but I meant "if he died on 9/9, how could be helpful after 9/11". This is in reference to the following sentences in the "Engaging and cooperating with the Taliban" section:

Masood-controlled militias blocked the pipeline's northern access route due to the longstanding civil war with Taliban forces. Masood was killed September 9 2001, in a Taliban bombing. Masood would later become a stalwart in American military policy to counter the Taliban after the September 11 attacks, leading Raphel's critics to lay blame on her for coddling the Taliban to advance America's commercial interests even as Taliban mercenaries gave refuge to Osama bin Laden and other senior Al Qaeda leaders as they planned the 9-11 attacks. 64.134.101.88 (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Review re-opened by Sasuke Sarutobi

@Sasuke Sarutobi: I have today completed the re-work and editing for GA review of article Timothy M. Carney. I will begin handling your requests on this article during the next few days as time permits. Would you like to set forth your list of concerns in a tabular manner so I can check each point off as I go along? Many thanks, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)