Talk:Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 09:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Review starts here:

• All references must be filled and styled appropriately.There are also parts that lack references.

 Done RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• The Onset section is too short.It contains no information on why Aleppo is so strategically important.Why and how did the peaceful protesters become rebels.

 Done, and the second concern mentioned is already present in course of battle.

• Perhaps you can provide information on the sectarian/minority populations in the city something along the lines of the pie chart on the main article about the war.

It is not required.

• Try to find the local NDF, Baath and Badr commanders.

This is insignificant.

• There is little to no mention of the impact of hell cannons and barrel bombs on the battle.

 Done

• The destruction of ancient heritage sites is also mentioned too briefly.

 Done

There may be more comments later after the above are resolved.--Catlemur (talk) 09:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Reference 106 is not filled, while many other refs need minor improvements. The source, the date when the article was originally posted, the date it was retrieved and the name of the article should be included when possible.

 Done

• Reddit and Twitter are used as sources which are probably not reliable enough for a Good Article. I would suggest using the proclamations and defection videos as sources instead of them.A further reading section listing at least a couple of books can also enhance the article.

 Done, This battle has not got coverage in books

• Were there no protests in Aleppo at all?Please list them if they occurred, do not forget the security forces' response to them.It currently seems as if rebels appeared out of the blue and for no specific reason.--Catlemur (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

• Work on the references is not yet complete.For example references:34,37,45,166.

• There is no reference confirming that Ali Abdullah Ayyoub is the chief of staff, similarly not all rebel factions listed in the infobox have references confirming their participation, just the units in case you cannot find a reference since this section quite detailed already.--Catlemur (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

All work completed. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• ISIL is not mentioned as a side in the infobox, its role and defeat should be mentioned in the main article.--Catlemur (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Catlemur ISIS was not involved in the battle, they had just some holdings in the city. 11:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Royroydeb I have to disagree.To quote the Inter-rebel conflict during the Syrian Civil War article: "On 8 January, rebels captured the ISIL headquarters in Aleppo city at the Children's hospital in the Qadi Askar district. ISIL forces lost control over opposition-held areas of the city and retreated to Al-Inzarat on the northeastern outskirts of Aleppo."

 Done

• This article about an ongoing event, and is therefore inherently unstable. It does not pass criterion 5. FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It is ongoing yet it is in a stalemate phase, neither faction can make any important gains in the foreseeable future.I think that unlike most other ongoing battles it might qualify for GA.--Catlemur (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Stalemate does mean a draw, and we have absolutely no idea what will happen in the immediate future, WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps others should also express their opinion on this issue as I am not entirely sure what should be done here.--Catlemur (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The informations are well sourced from RS and the article is also edited appropriately as the war progresses. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

According to Aljazeera, on 10 October 2015, rebels recaptured a village in Aleppo. The United States has pulled back on training the rebels. Russia has gotten involved in the fight. Since this article was nominated on 31 July, there have been about 140 edits to this article. It is not stable. This is an ongoing news event with no way to predict the events from day to day. I think this nomination should go on hold. — Maile (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Catlemur The involvement of IS is not required, as they captured some towns miles away from the main city, and according to a consensus it was decided only events in the city would be recorded. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Was ISIL present within the city or not? Where is the Qadi Askar district?Please include the commander of the Russian Air Forces to the list of commanders instead of Putin and add a reference confirming it. So far there is no consensus on whether the article can become GA due to the fact that it is ongoing.--Catlemur (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• The Syrian army is now advancing on Aleppo with Russian air cover.[1] This article is inherently unstable. "the article is also edited appropriately as the war progresses" Which just means it is unstable. FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Royroydeb Some references need to be tidied up again besides what I mentioned above.I will have to fail this review if I continue to see that there is no progress.--Catlemur (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments in passing

• The lead is not an adequate summary of the article. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Article meets 2(b) as the article has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Article meets 1(a) - prose is clear and readable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The more closely I look, the more I see the need for a decent copy-edit. At this point I feel that the article doesn't quite meet 1(a). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Article meets criteria 5 - it is stable; there are no edit wars, and the article is protected by community sanction which forbid edit wars. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Article meets criteria 6. There are no images in the article; there are two maps, which have appropriate copyright tags, and appropriate captions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Not a GA issue, but the use of flags in running prose, as in the Reactions section, is against MoS guidance at WP:WORDPRECEDENCE. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Article appears neutral, meeting criteria 4. I am not seeing biased language, or undue selection of information. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Article is richly cited, with almost every statement cited. Cites I have randomly checked are reliable news sources, and the information in the statements matches that of the source, so I haven't found evidence of original research. Article appears to meet all three requirements for criteria 2. Not a GA issue, but it would be helpful to have more detail on some cites, such as the name of the source. This is a requirement for Featured Articles, so if the article is to move forward in that direction, it would need to be done. It makes sense to do it now; indeed, it makes sense to put down all the required information first time, as this saves having to do it later. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• The Barrel bombs section is crudely written. The prose in that section is poor with some grammar errors, and it jumps into information without putting it into context. It's also unclear why the use of barrel bombs has been singled out for a section by itself. If it is because of international criticism, that might be better dealt with in either a section devoted to international criticism along with other criticisms of the conflict, or wrapped up more elegantly in the existing Reactions section. Barrel bombs have been used by the Syrian government in other areas of Syria, though Aleppo has been the main area. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Broad coverage is one of the most tricky to decide on when doing a GA review, and different people will have different views. I'm not seeing mention of car bombs or suicide bombs, though those have been a significant feature of the conflict. The ceasefire proposal, which gained significant international attention, is hidden in the Strategic analysis section; indeed, it's unclear how successful that section is in carrying out an analysis of the overall strategies. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• The Infobox is very long - is there a way of reducing its length and/or impact on the rest of the article? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Advice in Template:Infobox military conflict is that "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article." This seems to make sense. I struggle to see how useful it is to the general reader looking to get a basic understanding of the battle to be confronted with a list of nearly 50 names of units involved, many of whom are not notable enough to have articles. Better to name the main units, and then say there were nearly 50 units involved. In a general encyclopedia we aim to summarise knowledge, not detail everything. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think there is a lot of information collected in this article, and a decent job has been done to summarise a complex and ongoing battle. While I think the article meets a good number of the Good Article criteria, there are some criteria not met: aspects of Criteria 1 - the prose needs attention, and the lead needs building, and some aspects of the layout need attention; and Criteria 2 - coverage: some areas are covered too much, and some areas not covered enough. These are largely judgement calls, and other reviewers would disagree. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• In summary, given how long this GAN has been open, that the reviewer has concerns which have not been addressed, and I have additional concerns, my feeling is that this article is unlikely to meet all Good Article criteria within a reasonable period of time. I would support the reviewer closing this as not passed. However, as I have raised fresh concerns, it might be appropriate to allow the contributors seven days to address those concerns, and if they do not do so, then the article can be closed as not passed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• The comments were extremely helpful since I am not really skilled at those kind of reviews.I think that is fair, seven days to go for whoever wants to finish this.--Catlemur (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)