Talk:BYU Jerusalem Center/GA1

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Overall, this article needs work to be considered a Good Article. The areas of greatest is this article's neutrality.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Some areas written better than others. An example trouble spot:

"The main entry is on the eighth level, which also contains a recital and special events auditorium with organ, lecture rooms, general and reserve libraries, offices, a domed theater, and a learning resource area. The organ was made in Scandinavia and shipped to Israel where it was constructed piece by piece. It is a Marcussen organ."

This could be rephrased to better organize the center's composition.

I also thought this section needed some work. I have copy-edited it. Wrad (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Much better. I think the article is now well written. Farside6 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. B. MoS compliance:

   Several capitalization issues ("The Center's prominent position..." "center" should not be capitalized; "The Church had donated money..." "church" should not be capitalized.)

Fixed. Wrad (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Farside6 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Mostly well referenced

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Sentences such as: "During the fighting, the Center's staff remained on location and managed to maintain good relations on both Israeli and Palestinian sides." need citations. What constitutes "good relations?" Who can attest to this statement?

This statement is cited. Did you bother to read the source cited at the end of the paragraph? Wrad (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I did read the source, which says the following:

"We really have bent over backwards not to take sides," said Victor Ludlow, professor of ancient scripture and coordinator for near eastern studies. "We have been able to maintain a good reputation with both sides."

When including an opinion, is should be attributed and the fact that the individual has the opinion should be discussed. I would rewrite it to read:

"During the fighting, the center's staff remained on location. According to a BYU professor, the center managed to maintain good relations on both Israelis and Palestinians."

Please see WP:ASF for including facts and facts about opinions. Farside6 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you say so in the first place? You made it sound like such a big thing that would take so much work to fix. I'll fix it right now, easy. Wrad (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ta-daa! Done. Wrad (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Farside6 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

   "Some considered this discriminatory, as no other Christian Church had been asked to do this in Jerusalem." Who? What source? This is a "mass attribution." Please visit Wikipedia:Words to avoid and Wikipedia: Neutral point of view.

This is cited at the bottom of the freaking paragraph. Wrad (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, it's not only citing sources, it's about how the article is written. Replace "Some considered this discriminatory" with who specifically thought the action was discriminatory. Even a search in Proquest only yielded an abstract of the 2004 Professional Geographer article you cite. WP:POV states: Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

• Who advocates the point of view
• What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)

Farside6 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't noticed that the article has changed to say that it was Israelis who said this. Reasoning is already in the article. I don't believe listing specific names is really necessary. It was just a minority opinion in the Knesset. I really don't see the problem here anymore. Wrad (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice, but I do now. Thank you for pointing that out. Farside6 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Appears to be broad

   B. Focused:

   Appears to be focused

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   All the sources for the article are United States sources. If the construction was controversial, how can the article be balanced without at least a few Jewish sources? Further, 18 of the 21 references are BYU, LDS or affiliated publications.

If you didn't notice, the article directly quotes several Hebrew sources, including Haredim newpapers. Therefore, your request for "at least a few Jewish sources" is quite easily met. The entire controversy is cited by a Non-LDS publication which present both sides pretty well. I think your overview of these sources is superficial. Did you just look at the number list on the bottom? Did that constitute your entire review of the neutrality of these sources? You're gonna have to do better than that. The US can hardly be considered an anti-Israel institution, and in this debate, the US was a third-party. It was not a US vs. Israel debate. If you look at the references from the Church and BYU, I think you'll find that, content-wise, things are still quite neutral. Most of the article is cited by non-LDS sources. Even if most sources are LDS, those sources cover limited portions of the article. Wrad (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just added several extra sources just to make even a superficial count show that this article is not biased. It now cites Jewish, American, and Mormon sources in plenty. Remarkably, I didn't have to change a single word within the article to do this because the article was neutral all along. Wrad (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That was fast. Very good. Thank you for adding more in-line citations, instead of overall paragraph citations. Much easier to verify. Farside6 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The article is stable.

2. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   More images would be helpful, especially in the history and facility sections.

Not a reason to fail. Wrad (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a reason to fail, I agree. It was intended as a suggestion to improve the article. Farside6 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Many items can be quickly corrected, but writing the article form a neutral point of view will take more time.

The article has already been carefully checked for neutrality, and your superficial review has ignored this. Wrad (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit peeved that this was failed without any chance for us to defend ourselves. And the reviewer didn't even sign his review! This is NOT grounds for a quick fail! Wrad (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like a second opinion. This article should at the very least have been put on hold. I have asked for a second opinion on the GA page. Wrad (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I plan to lift sources into the article from some of the articles cited in order to make it obvious to even a superficial ref-count review that this article is neutral. Wrad (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Article sources count (if you value such things) stands thus:

• American (non-Mormon) sources: 14
• Mormon/BYU sources: 18
• Jewish sources: 9

Seems good enough to me! Wrad (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, please try not to take this review personally. I've added a few (signed) comments above. Please consider making a few changes as recommended. I respect your request for a second opinion, and apologize for not granting you the appropriate hold time to improve this article. I believe, however, you have a better chance of success if you make more changes than just changing the capitalization of a few words. Farside6 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have changed a lot more than that. Haven't you seen it? Wrad (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I get like this sometimes. I'm going to take a break. I've changed a lot of stuff so have a look and maybe the other editor who's been working on this will come along. He's a bit more cool-headed than I am. Wrad (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is now a good article! Farside6 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I missed an exciting day of editing yesterday. Thanks to Farside6 for the review and to Wrad for the follow-up. --Eustress (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)