Talk:Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 1ST7 (talk · contribs) 05:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this nomination. Initial comments should be posted soon. Thanks for the work you've put into this! --1ST7 (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I did some minor copyediting; I hope you don't mind. Here's the review:

1. Well-written

   • This sentence is a little awkward: "The most important of these is the unanimously adopted UN Security Council Resolution 2118, which imposed on Syria responsibilities and a timeline for the destruction of its chemical weapons and chemical weapons production facilities." Please rephrase. The second sentence could also use a rephrase, specifically at the "made binding on Syria" part.
   • In the second paragraph, can you please change "responded to positively by" to "received positive responses from"?
   • Please mention the Ghouta chemical attack in the lead, as it is the primary reason for the destruction of the weapons.
   • "(Under the UN Charter, Chapter VII measures range from "demonstrations" to sanctions or military action and can be vetoed by any of the five permanent members of the Security Council.)" You don't need parentheses for this.
   • There are some places where the article uses "U.S." or "U.K." or "U.N.", and there are other places where it uses "US" or "UK" or "UN". It doesn't matter which style is used, but it needs to be consistent.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   • The last sentences for both paragraphs under "Negotiations and Agreement" need citations. (Done)
   • So does the last one under "Overview and Enforcement". (Done)
   • The references that have been used look fine, but the style is inconsistent. For example, Reuters is in italics in some citations and is not in others. (WP:GA? and WP:WGN: "(Avoid) requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)" -Rolf)

3. Broad in its coverage:

   • Please add a little more information on the Ghouta attack in the background section.

4. Neutral:

   • Appears relatively so.

5. Stable:

   • Looking at the article's history, it appears to have undergone frequent, significant changes. That's understandable, considering the process is still ongoing. For this to pass, you will have to commit to keeping it up to GA standards.
   • Much of the text uses present tense, which is also understandable, considering how this is happening right now. However, this is likely to change sometime in the next few months, at which point some of the text is going to need to be rephrased.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

As a whole, I am mostly concerned about the status of the article as a current event, as it could undergo a number of significant changes in the next few months. For now, I'm going to put this on hold for a week to give you time to address the above issues. Thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"For this to pass, you will have to commit to keeping it up to GA standards" Do you just mean in general like any other GA, or is this an extra requirement based on stability concerns? The latter seems odd, I'd think either it passes the stability criterion or it doesn't, but I am not a reviewer. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for adding those sources to the article. Secondly, I mean that at the moment, it seems relatively stable, but that could change in the future because this is a current event. As this situation develops over the course of the next few months, the article may need an update. Contributing editors will need to make sure those updates comply with the GA criteria. --1ST7 (talk) 06:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Made all Well-written suggested edits, with possible exception of 'consistency' on U.K., U.N., U.S. OR UK, UN, US. I changed all to consistently UK, UN, and U.S. "US" just looks inappropriate outside of a headline in my humble opinion, in part probably because major newspapers in the U.S. (NY Times, WaPost) use only "U.S." "US" is used by major British publications (BBC, Guardian). But, no big deal if someone wants to go 'all the way' with the suggested consistency change.Haberstr (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That should be fine. --1ST7 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the inconsistent reference style, is there consensus that it's not a priority? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the style is similar enough that it won't prevent the article from being passed, though it is preferable that the article be as consistent as possible. --1ST7 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I checked the article over again, and I believe everything that needs to be addressed has been addressed. As far as stability goes, it does not seem to change on a day to day basis as a result of content dispute or edit wars. Therefore, I'm passing it. Congratulations, and thanks for your work! --1ST7 (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)