Talk:Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 17:01, 30 December 2016 (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.	Pulling this straight from the B-class review: Two grammar issues: "..reportedly died of gas poisoning from a faulty heater..." he reportedly died, or died of gas poisoning from a supposed (reportedly) faulty heater.... and American Secretary of State should be US Secretary of State.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Any detection by the copvio tool is due to quotes being used.
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).	The timeline of incidents section needs expanded quite a bit in my opinion. It may be better to have a timeline in the form of a graph or similar, and then move away from a list of events that occurred and instead describe them in a little more detail. For example, the Ardeshir Hosseinpour article goes into pretty good detail on what occurred, and pretty much all of that is missed in this article. Let me know if you disagree.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Reading through the sources, it looked like at least the initial reaction pointed to an Iranian group that may have performed it (among Israel and the US as well). I think it might be good to split up the reactions into more of an initial reactions and another section called something else that describes the allegations at a later time. This point is open for discussion, let me know what you think.
	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 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.	On hold pending 6b.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images of at a minimum the scientists who were assassinated would be useful. The best case would be images of the aftermath of the explosions if you can find any.
	7. Overall assessment.

• Kees08: Thanks for the review. It appears that you are dealing with in a precise manner. Regarding the timeline I also think that graphically showing the points is more interesting. However, I'm not sure if it's right to separate the details. How about reflecting them in a table? On the reaction table, I prefer to separate state and non-state reactions. Also, I have no idea why a separate section is dedicated to Ardeshir Hosseinpour, among others. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

A table will be fine, assuming we are thinking of the same thing. I do not know why he has his own reaction section either; if he has his own, they should all have their own probably. I'll wait to finish the review until some of the previous comments are addressed and we get a little closer to completion. Kees08 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Response to the review

•  Done The grammar issues was resolved ([1], [2]). Mhhossein ^talk 13:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Done A pic was inserted. I'm seeking for more pics. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

More pics added. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Early closure

• Kees08: Did you fail the nomination? I though that the discussion were ongoing. I meant to reshape the timeline section! --Mhhossein ^talk 15:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I saw that. Legobot must be confused, I did not fail it. Kees08 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This was due to the article being moved earlier today, and then moved back. While it was moved, the article name no longer matched the name of this review page, thus a disconnect and the (mistaken) assumption by Legobot that the review had failed because it had disappeared. Now that the article has been moved back, all is well; if it moves again more permanently, the review page will also need to be moved. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Table

• Kees08: How is this table in your viewpoint? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am a little undecided on how that section should look in general. It could probably stay as-is or have the table added. The important thing with that section is that it gets expanded greatly. The article is about assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, but there is only a small list describing the attacks. If the article was titled 'Reactions to assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists,' it would be fine the way it is. Does that make sense? So in general the big thing I care about is a large expansion of the assassinations themselves. Kees08 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I can understand you better now! --Mhhossein ^talk 18:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm dealing with the suggestion. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I checked it out, definitely going the right direction. Would you be fine if I failed it, then when you resubmit it you can just let me know and I'll take it up right away? I try not to have too many reviews open at once. Let me know if you would rather not. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion

I am going to fail this for now, but when you renominate please ping me and I'll take the review again. I think once you finish up what you are doing it will be very close to a GA. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Kees08: Thanks for your suggestions. I was busy with real life but will keep on the job. I'll ping you when ever I'm done. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Great! Don't be discouraged by the 'fail,' we'll get this thing to GA soon enough. Kees08 (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)