Talk:September 11 attacks/GA5

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 11:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this. I should have a comprehensive review in about a day. Rainbow unicorn, I see that you haven't contributed to the article before nominating, do you or does anybody else know the main contributors to this who might be willing to handle my future comments? JAGUAR  11:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

Lead

• The first paragraph of the lead should be expanded slightly in accordance to WP:LEAD and MOS:LAYOUT. If it can't be expanded, then merge some content from elsewhere in the lead to make the opening paragraph more proportionate

Expanded the first paragraph. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• The fourth plane which crashed in Shanksville is not mentioned in the opening paragraph

Mentioned the town. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Per WP:LEADCITE, citations in the lead are discouraged unless it's citing controversial information. I realise that the whole topic is controversial, but there are some instances of citations in the lead that do not need to be there. Examples include bare facts such as "The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was targeted at Washington D.C.,[2]" and "The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was targeted at Washington D.C.,[2]"

Removed some references from the lead. I left the most important ones. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The United States responded to 9/11 by launching the War on Terror" - responding to 9/11 sounds vague, it might sound better as responded to the attacks or just cut '9/11' altogether

Change to "the attacks." PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that the initiation of the Homeland Security Act and several conspiracy theories are not included in the lead - I think this would be an important addition in order for the lead to summarise

I added specific mentions of legislation to the lead. I did not mention the conspiracy theories because I do not think they are important enough to be mentioned in the lead. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• The last paragraph "On November 18, 2006, construction of One World Trade Center began..." is too short for a standalone paragraph. I'd recommend merging it

Merged the last two paragraphs of the lead. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Body

• "Attackers" sub-section looks awkward

Could you please clarify what you mean by awkward? I do not understand what you are referring to.PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think he means that it doesn't look right to have a section with no content, I agree. It was just "Further information" links, so I removed the ones already link to and moved one to a different sub-section. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• "According to bin Laden, Muslim legal scholars, "have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries."" - sounds confusing. Did Muslim legal scholars say that? If so the quotes need to be paraphrased

Bin Laden did, rephrased it. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• "In the tape, bin Laden is seen talking" - in the video

Done. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The transcript references several times to the United States specifically targeting Muslims" - this needs a citation
• "After a nearly 10-year manhunt" - I would write this as just "10-year"

Done. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed section is too short and needs to be merged

Done. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Others have argued that 9/11 was a strategic move with the objective of provoking America into a war that would incite a pan-Islamic revolution" - who are the others? Is this relating to conspiracy theorists?

Other authors, I've rephrased that part of the section to make it more clear. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• "but both spoke little English, did poorly with flying lessons" - performed

Done. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• The second-to-last paragraph in the Planning of the attacks needs more sources

Done. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The Pentagon sustained major damage" - no it didn't? Only a partial section was damaged which was being renovated at the time

Changed that. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• "At 9:40 a.m., the FAA grounded all aircraft within the continental U.S." - this is the first mention of the FAA, so it needs to be written out fully and linked

Done. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• "...and aircraft already in flight were told to land immediately" - this needs a citation

Done. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is a verification tag in the Events section

Fixed and removed. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• "and all international flights were banned from landing on U.S. soil for three days" - "soil" sounds informal

Changed to "United States territory" Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• The small paragraph in the Casualties section "After New York, New Jersey lost the most state citizens" needs to be merged

Done. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• "breaking through 310 feet (94 m) of the 3 outermost of the building's 5 rings" - small numbers need to be written out

Done. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• The FAA is written out and linked in the Aftermath section (At 8:32 a.m., Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)) but not in its first mention

Made and linked "Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)" as the first mention, other mentions are now just "FAA". Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Half of the Military operations section is unsourced

Fixed. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Fifteen of the men were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one (Atta) from Egypt" - might be worth removing Atta here as this is the first mention of him. Readers would not know what this means

Done. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• "These conversations did not specifically mention the World Trade Center or Pentagon, or other specifics" - WP:OVERLINK of World Trade Center and Pentagon

Removed links. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

References

• No dead links, incredibly

On hold

On hold for now. I'll come back to this later and make a decision whether or not to gather second opinions on this. JAGUAR  12:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you need a second opinion for?--Dom497 (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I knew that this is a controversial topic and I'm still debating whether or not to close this now. I haven't even done a full source check yet and there are too many glaring issues that I doubt anyone would address, since the nominator has never contributed to the article. I was going to gather second opinions so I could know if somebody would interested in handling this or offering their opinions whether or not this should be failed. I'll wait a while and see what the responses are. JAGUAR  10:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed this nomination and I am willing to help with improving this article. I can address these issues before you get a second opinion. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out, I'm helping out too now. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for also helping. I have been busy with work recently and haven't been on Wikipedia much. I think we are still awaiting a second opinion. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted

OK, sorry for the delay here but it took me a while to do a source check and I don't think we need a second opinion any more as I'm happy that this article now meets the GA criteria. The sources, a great number reliable and detailed all provide enough information on the content in this article. Given the complexity and controversy with this article I was cautious to leave it on hold for a second opinion, but after reading it again if dawned on me that it is well-written and comprehensive, the two most important things of the criteria. Well done on all the work! This one is well deserved. JAGUAR  22:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)