Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Chetsford (talk · contribs) 00:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

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.	Rework throughout: Commas throughout article need to be formatted outside quotes as per MOS:COMMA. "U.S." and "US" are used interchangeably and should be standardized throughout article. A great many sentences omit the definite article (e.g. Hundreds demonstrated outside US embassy in Amman, demanding its closure and the expulsion of the US charge d'affaires from Jordan. or Two Palestinians were killed and 120 injured in clashes on December 22, according to Palestinian Health Ministry.) which needs to be corrected throughout. At several points, the article swings between present and past tense (e.g. The United States also issues a general warning for Americans abroad about the possibility of violent protests. ) which needs resolution. For all web and news citations, access date fields need to be added throughout article (in cases in which they aren't already, which are a great many). Citations don't always use the appropriate citation templates. A large number of news sources use Template:Cite web, instead of Template: Cite news, which means information like publication dates are omitted. This should be corrected throughout article. Commas should be added before introducing a mid-sentence quote throughout (e.g. On December 8 Assistant Secretary of State David M. Satterfield said "There has been no change in our policy with respect to consular practice or passport issuance at this time." needs a comma after "said".) Using "an historic" instead of "a historic" would be nice, but is not necessary. [optional] In a few cases there needs to a be terminological clarification. For example "Protesters gathered outside the US embassy in Hague ..." is not correct as the embassy is the ambassador and his entourage, not a building. Ergo, one can't gather "outside" a group of people. This, and similar instances, should be phrased "protesters gathered outside the chancery of the US embassy" (or the residence, if they weren't at the chancery). Some of the sources are out of order, for example in the first paragraph in the lede citation 5 precedes citation 4. Specific issues: There is an errant comma at the end of the first sentence in the section titled "background". Per MOS:SURNAME, honorifics like "Mr" should not be used. At one point there is a reference to "Mr. Obama". Before beginning to use "IDF" as an acronym for "Israeli Defense Forces" the acronym needs to be introduced following the first instance of invocation. for a tally of 14-1 should be rewritten fourteen to one or some variation of that since MOS:SPELL09 requires digits 0-9 be spelled-out "Which declared the statement of policy that" is unusually worded and possibly redundant. Can you "declare a statement"? Shouldn't it just be "declared that"? In the section "Background" Donald Trump should be introduced with full name in the first instance of reference instead of "Trump". January 1, 2018 no comma between "1" and "2018" "as did every president before him since 1995" should be "as had every president before him since 1995". "for Americans travelling or living abroad in those countries" should be "for Americans traveling or living in those countries". This sentence - Two Danish journalists of National Geographic channel were injured on 16 December by an Islamist carrying a knife and crying "Allahu Akbar" in Libreville, according to Gabon's Defense Minister Etienne Kabinda Makaga. - would probably be better Two Danish journalists of the National Geographic channel were injured in Libreville on 16 December by an Islamist carrying a knife and crying "Allahu Akbar", according to Gabon's Defense Minister Etienne Kabinda Makaga. This - "during protests in variously, Berlin, Gothenburg and Vienna" - is a bit clunky, could we omit "variously"? 1,200 anti-Israel and anti-American protesters ... - we shouldn't start a sentence with digits; maybe say "more than a thousand"? burnt flags with Star of David should be "burned flags with the Star of David" This sentence - "Hundreds of Muslim attended the Friday prayers outside the White House in respond to calls by American Muslim organizations." - needs to be rewritten for correct use of plural forms and other serious consistency, tense, and grammar issues. I'm not sure the title of this article is correct - "United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital". Shouldn't it be "United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel" since it was recognized as capital of the state of Israel, not the people of Israel? Unless the portraits were owned by Donald Trump I believe there should not be an "apostrophe s" here "Palestinians burned Donald Trump's portraits and effigies and tore pictures of Salman bin Abdulaziz and Muhammad bin Salman in protest of the embassy move.". In other words, maybe just "Palestinians burned portraits and effigies of Donald Trump ..."? This section is a little clunky: King Salman of Saudi Arabia said that moving the American embassy to Jerusalem would be a "flagrant provocation" to Muslims. Saudi Arabia and Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi both expressed similar concerns about the viability of the peace process. Could it be reworded Salman of Saudi Arabia said that moving the American embassy to Jerusalem would be a "flagrant provocation" to Muslims and expressed concerns, later shared by Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, about the viability of the peace process. This sentence has no period closing it. I'm also not sure if "defined" is the correct word or it was a typo? Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro defined the announcement on national television before travelling to Istanbul to preside a Non-Alligned Movement summit to discuss the position as "an illegal declaration, absolutely illegal, I would say irrational. A true provocation, a war declaration to the Arab people, to the Muslim people"
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The layout of the article currently makes it more appropriate for an article titled "Response to United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital". I'd suggest re-sectionalizing it so that all "response" bits fall under a single section. Perhaps there's a section for background, one for announcement, and one for all the responses (domestic, Israeli / Palestinian, other international, and non-governmental [inclusive of demonstrations, church statements, and so forth])?
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.	Many times statements are sourced to the paragraph, instead of sentence, level but ultimately everything checks out (note other comment above about the absence of some standard parameters in many sources, such as access dates, etc.).
	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).	Without passing judgment on it myself, the RS noticeboard seems to have determined that Press TV is not WP:RS. The Milli Gazette is probably RS for local reporting, however, I have a hard time believing a bi-weekly Indian newspaper has the capability to reliably originate reporting on events in the United States and the specific article in question does not seem to have come from a syndicate.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No indication of OR
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows "violation possible" at 49%, however, on closer review it appears to be picking up on common word strings and quotes.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The "domestic reaction" section mentions the response of J Street but is silent on the response of the entire U.S. Congress. At the very least we should include the response of the principal officers in congress (e.g. Majority / Minority Leaders, Speaker, Whips, committee chairs and ranking members, etc.) of the two parties or any caucus statements that were made.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I'm concerned that the reaction and response sub-sections are all minute-by-minute, blow-by-blow accounts that veer way outside of the subject established by the title. The article is on a diplomatic act but has such a high level of detail on the reaction of individuals that it even includes, for instance, the fact that two people in Gabon received minor cuts from a third person with a knife. Many other sections seem just to be chronologically presented, exhaustive casualty lists presented in "this and then" format (e.g. "This happened here, then that happened there. The next day this happened over here."). While WP:SYNTH is OR, WP:NOTSYNTH says that "Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length -- even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources.". Under the header "European Union" we have the response of the European Union in its corporate capacity, but we also have the response of individual member states of the EU, and there are responses from individual residents of EU member states not speaking on behalf of anyone except themselves or private organizations (e.g. Geert Wilders). This is a bit confusing. Also, I'm not sure why we would include Geert Wilders' response speaking in a private capacity but not the response of Hungary speaking as a state? Ultimately, in my opinion, the response of states and quasi-state actors (e.g. UN, EU), should be differentiated from the response of individuals and interest groups (e.g. churches and political parties), instead of jumbled all up together.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This is generally okay. By word count there is a greater focus on criticism of the decision than opposition to it, however, that's simply a reflection of reality. The one issue I do have, however, is that the article - as written - indicates this was a personal action of Donald Trump. While the buck may have stopped at Donald Trump, the action was ultimately taken by the United States in its corporate capacity. For instance, here it says "On December 6, 2017 President Trump formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" but it should probably read "On December 6, 2017 the United States formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel". This is ameliorated somewhat by the attachment of the title "President" in front of "Trump", thereby implying it was an official - rather than personal - act, however, we should be more explicit. This comment is not limited to this passage but should be modified throughout anywhere the decision is personalized rather than corporatized.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	holding comments pending further consultations
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.	looks good
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I believe it's currently possible, and desirable, to illustrate this with more images. An article of this length should - ideally - not just have two images. A quick search of commercial-use okay'ed images on Flickr finds a few acceptable images of protests, there are also USG PD images of the current chancery of the US embassy in Tel Aviv available in the Commons, generic images of the city of Jerusalem in the Commons, headshots of some of the principal commenters like Federica Mogherini in the Commons etc.
	7. Overall assessment.

• I tried resectioning and I don't think putting all the responses into one section is an improvement. It negatively effects the navigability of the table of contents and I didn't see any part of MOS:LAYOUT that would require it, but let me know if I missed something.

• I don't think the citation style has to be consistent for GA?

• I can look into removing PressTV. I think it is generally reliable, but a GA should have higher standards. Also Milli Gazette.

• You wrote as the embassy is the ambassador and his entourage, not a building. - the embassy is also a building, and the source doesn't say anything about a chancery.

• Will implement the prose corrections and appreciate the thorough proofreading. Ditto for commas.

• Ultimately, in my opinion, the response of states and quasi-state actors (e.g. UN, EU), should be differentiated from the response of individuals and interest groups (e.g. churches and political parties), instead of jumbled all up together. - I've split the European response into two sections to make it clearer. Churches are already in a different section.

• The one issue I do have, however, is that the article - as written - indicates this was a personal action of Donald Trump. - The article says "President Trump" to introduce him and Trump afterwards, which is the standard practice. "President" makes it perfectly clear he was not speaking in a personal capacity. I also think it is more neutral this way—the article is going to be around after this presidency is concluded and I don't see any detriment to its neutrality to identify which President it was, nor any benefit to making this intentionally vague or removing information/wikilinks.

• Adding more images isn't a problem.

• I can review it to see if some of the extra details can be trimmed, without disrupting the article's stability. And will look into adding some of the Congressional reactions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System - I have a large volume of additional comments to add so, to save yourself time, you may want to hold off on any edits for now. Chetsford (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Re citations I could make time to do some extra cleanup just to keep it neat, but I'd prefer to go through the content issues first and save citations for last after everything else is resolved - if it stays stable and everything else is ready to pass, I will do the citation cleanup. Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Since there are a lot of grammar issues here, would you want to consider submitting this to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for a copyedit before GA review? Chetsford (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

A lot of editors worked on the article, and I should have done a full copyedit before nominating for GA, I can do it now - I don't know if GOCE is necessary, but we can also do that if you prefer.Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Checklist:

•  Done standardize date formats
•  Done separate EU from political parties
•  Done standardize U.S. => US
•  Done change article title to "United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital"

Copyedits:

• "Palestinians burned Donald Trump's portraits and effigies" => "Palestinians burned portraits and effigies of Donald Trump"
• "Hundreds of Muslim attended the Friday prayers outside the White House in respond" => "Hundreds of Muslims attended the Friday prayers outside the White House, in response"
• "Mr. Obama" => Obama
• which declared the statement of policy that => which declared that
• living abroad => living
• 1,200 anti-Israel and anti-American protesters => More than a thousand anti-Israel and anti-American protesters
• and burnt flags => burned flags
• variously

Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's the second round of review; a few new items but also some items from the first round still need correcting -

• "ordered the planning of the relocation" --> "ordered planning for the relocation"
• A great many sentences omit the definite article (e.g. Hundreds demonstrated outside US embassy in Amman, demanding its closure and the expulsion of the US charge d'affaires from Jordan. or Two Palestinians were killed and 120 injured in clashes on December 22, according to Palestinian Health Ministry.) which needs to be corrected throughout.
• At several points, the article swings between present and past tense (e.g. The United States also issues a general warning for Americans abroad about the possibility of violent protests. ) which needs resolution.
• For all web and news citations, access date fields need to be added throughout article (in cases in which they aren't already, which are a great many).
• Citations don't always use the appropriate citation templates. A large number of news sources use Template:Cite web, instead of Template: Cite news, which means information like publication dates are omitted. This should be corrected throughout article.
• Commas should be added before introducing a mid-sentence quote throughout (e.g. On December 8 Assistant Secretary of State David M. Satterfield said "There has been no change in our policy with respect to consular practice or passport issuance at this time." needs a comma after "said".)
• Some of the sources are out of order, for example in the first paragraph in the lede citation 5 precedes citation 4.
• Before beginning to use "IDF" as an acronym for "Israeli Defense Forces" the acronym needs to be introduced following the first instance of invocation.

Chetsford (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System as it's been a week now and there doesn't seem to have been any further momentum here, but we realistically have a few more rounds of edits to go through, I'm going to wrap-up this review tomorrow so you can continue working on it in a closed state. Chetsford (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• As it appears this GA review has been abandoned, I'm closing it as failed for now, with no prejudice for picking it up in the future. Chetsford (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.