Talk:1966 Syrian coup d'état

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

February 31[edit]

February 31 is a nonsense date. Can someone familiar with the topic correct it and check the article for other errors? Drutt (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1966 Syrian coup d'état/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 18:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC) I'll field this one, if that's okay TIAYN? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Its OK. --TIAYN (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. The prose is generally very good, although I do believe that improvements could be introduced to make the prose even clearer. For instance, the first sentence includes the wording "...was led by neo-Ba'athist members of the Syrian Regional Branch of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party against the party's historical leaders"; I think that "... was led by neo-Ba'athist members of the Syrian Regional Branch of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party and overthrew the party's historical leaders" might be preferable. The terms "bloody fighting" might be more accurately termed "violent fighting", thereby containing less visceral terminology.

"Consolidation of Power:" "After taking power in the 8th of March Revolution," – what year was this ? The UAR was mentioned; what is it ? "opposed the Ba'athists on the ground that they had lost political power and were threatened"; this might be mistakenly read as meaning that the Ba'athists (and not the upper classes) had lost political power. "It didn't help either" seems a little informal to my eyes; maybe "Also problematic" or something of that nature ? All these things need to be dealt with so that any reader with no background understanding of Syrian history can know exactly what's going on.

"Conflict with the Aflaqists:" "Another problem facing the Ba'ath..." – Ba'ath Party ?. "in the sense that" – "'involving" ? You don't need both an "e.g." and a "for instance"; I would change that to "for instance tolerating freedom of speech". What does "the heights of the economy" refer to, it is not a term I have encountered before ? When you state "Exploitation of labour would end, capitalism would disappear, and in agriculture the plan...", we need to explicit that this is what the radical Ba'athists believed would happen. Shouldn't "al-Bitar" be capitalised as it starts the sentence ? "enough support" – "sufficient support" ? "would never be won over unless they" – make clear that the "they" are the leftists, not the bourgeoisie.

Power struggle:between Muhammad Umran, the Minister of Defence,” how about “between the Minister of Defence Muhammad Umran”; I think this is a lot clearer. “With Hafez al-Assad support, the Military Committee initiated a bloody counter-attack on the rioters”; this sentence lacks a full stop at the end, and it should be “Assad's support”. Again “bloody” would be better replaced with “violent”. We mention “revolution”, maybe we should specify “Arab nationalist revolution” or something of that nature, so that the reader doesn't mistake the riots for the revolution. “by telling” – “by revealing” ? “from the get-go”; this isn't necessary and is a little informal for Wiki style.

The coup:forbidden for the Regional Command to transfer or dismiss without”; to transfer or dismiss what ?

Under "Neo-Ba'athism" we state that "Some believe..." but it is important that we state exactly who thinks this. "He further stated that the military Ba'ath (as "paraphrased by Martin Seymour") "was and remains..." is rather cluttered, could it be rephrased more elegantly ?

1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Regarding the lead section, I think we should have more than just one paragraph, with a wider discussion of events, for instance we could do with some information on the reasons for the coup, its wider background, and its long-term legacy.
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. The third paragraph of the "Power struggle" needs more references.

More generally, the article could do with being more densely referenced, although that is not a prerequisite for GAR.

2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
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).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
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 images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Why so few images ?
Reply Since there are very few images which have a direct connection to this coup... --TIAYN (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
7. Overall assessment. Excellent work TIAYN, I am now happy to upgrade this to GA quality! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)