Jump to content

Talk:September 11 attacks/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will start to review this article in the next few days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • While waiting for my comments, please address the following:
WP:LEAD
  • First thoughts. As I embark on this review, I expect it may be a WP:IAR affair.
  • That being said, at 58159 characters of readable prose the article is on the borderline of what I consider to be maximal length (60KB) so I would expect the LEAD to be bordering on my upper limits as well. Generally, I think about 3000 characters is the max and we are at 3102. I don't want to bean count here, so I will just proceed with that out there. In the end, I am going to have to get familiar with the prose of the main text and see if the LEAD provides a representative summary. Let's look back at its overall length towards the end of the review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have one issue with the opening sentence. Is it possible to make it clear that the final alternative means "nine eleven" and not "nine slash eleven".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding article length, as we go through the GA review, I will look for opportunities to trim the length.
    • I can add something saying, "pronounced /naɪnɪˈlɛvɪn/". What do you think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about just adding nine eleven? Would that be inappropriate? I don't know if it is ever written like that. If not would (spoken as nine eleven) be better than the fancy pronunciation?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure that I follow. Are you suggesting that we replace "9/11" with "nine eleven"? It's true that's not how it's pronounced, but it is how it is spelled (which is why I suggested adding a pronunciation explanation to the article). I'm not sure what the best way is to solve this issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here is what we have now:
            • The September 11 attacks (often referred to, in combination with the attacks' side effects on that day, as September 11, September 11th or 9/11)
          • Here are some alternatives:
            • The September 11 attacks (often referred to, in combination with the attacks' side effects on that day, as September 11, September 11th or 9/11 — "pronounced /naɪnɪˈlɛvɪn/")
            • The September 11 attacks (often referred to, in combination with the attacks' side effects on that day, as September 11, September 11th, 9/11 or nine eleven)
            • The September 11 attacks (often referred to, in combination with the attacks' side effects on that day, as September 11, September 11th or 9/11, which is spoken as nine eleven)
            • The September 11 attacks (often referred to, in combination with the attacks' side effects on that day, as September 11, September 11th or 9/11, which is pronounced nine eleven)
            • The September 11 attacks (often referred to, in combination with the attacks' side effects on that day, as September 11, September 11th or 9/11 — pronounced nine eleven)
          • Note that in any of the above nine eleven might be better represented as one word nine-eleven. My problem is that when I look at the current alternatives I think an unfamiliar reader might see nine slash eleven or 9/11ths. Such a reader is not likely to really understand the IPAc symbols.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused on the responder death toll. Numbers in that paragraph don't add up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Attacks
Casualties
  • Why don't these numbers match those in the LEAD?
  • The following sentence seems to be a bit garbled: "At least 1,366 people died who were at or above the floors of impact in the North Tower and at least 618 in the South Tower, where evacuation had begun before the second impact." The 618 part seems ungrammatical.
  • I would reorganize this section. Some of the death demographics should be moved earlier. The emergency worker and buildign employees paragraphs could be 2nd and 3rd.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Damage

Fail As noted at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/1 this article lacks complete coverage of the topic. It is a very lengthy article and I have already found major holes. The article needs to be rewritten while staying under 60 KB of prose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have to disagree. WP:GA? does not require "complete" coverage, it calls for "broad coverage", "broad" being defined as: "(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" - which this article clearly satisfies. The length is justified for an article on a subject as complex and significant as the 911 attacks. I also think closing the GAR in just one day, without giving editors time to respond to the items needing attention, is premature and uncalled for. Shirtwaist ☎ 02:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding article length, it is currently at 162 KB (165,918 / 1024). I will continue to look for opportunities to remove extraneous details and streamline the verbiage. Removing 2 KB shouldn't be too hard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TTT only mentioned "readable prose size" as being a possible problem, and that is at about 57kB - which is not in itself a valid criticism of an article on a subject of this magnitude and complexity. The FA article on the Oklahoma City bombing, for example, is 52kB of readable prose, and the 911 attacks have far more depth and complexity than that event. Hell, the FA Changeling (film) article is 56kB readable prose, and it's a movie for godsake! Considering that TTT said "this article lacks complete coverage of the topic", removing things seems the wrong way to go. I still can't figure out what he meant by "major holes" and "The article needs to be rewritten". Shirtwaist ☎ 05:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay...Tony has helped progress this article as an outside reviewer and I think A Quest for Knoweldge is doing an excellent job so far...getting this article even to GA is a very difficult thing to do, so that in itself will be a huge milestone. I also feel the scope needs to be streamlined some more to jive beter with the title...but again, that is so difficult here where it a huge story to relate and figuring out what sectiosn can be eliminated or trimmed is no easy task. I want to thank Tony the Tiger for taking on this task...and everyone else for already making massive improvements here, especially A Quest for KNowledge.--MONGO 01:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks/GA2&oldid=1137180357"