Talk:The Terrorists of Iraq
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Mike Christie in topic GA Review
 | The Terrorists of Iraq has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 24, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Terrorists of Iraq article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from The Terrorists of Iraq appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 July 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notable book. Per WP:NBOOK Criteria number one (1). The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.
Namely, the academic journal Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, and The Times of Israel. Sagecandor (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Required reading at Tufts University
editRequired reading at Tufts University.
This is not "trivia".
Directly goes to notability of the work.
I'd rather not have stuff removed so that someone can then come and try to nominate the page for deletion, thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia. Material only used to establish credibility should not be in the lede. The reference is already in the body of the text. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Fine whatever. Just please don't try to be disruptive and jeopardize the stability of this page. Sagecandor (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Question: Is it of note to mention in the lede that the book was required reading at Tufts University ? Sagecandor (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
- Power~enwiki wrote: "Material only used to establish credibility should not be in the lede." I cannot find any Wikipedia guidance that backs up this claim. AFAICT, it is fine for WP:BK to be established anywhere in the article. @Sagecandor: I hope this helps answer your question. zazpot (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Zazpot:Thank you for providing your previously uninvolved opinion. I would agree with you that a book being required reading at a prestigious institution like Tufts University does go to notability. Can this be added back to the lede now? Sagecandor (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Sagecandor: having now skimmed the article, I note that the fact in question is mentioned in what seems to be the most suitable place for it: the Release and reception section. Therefore, it would be redundant to also have the fact in the lede. The lede should only relate information likely of interest to a wide audience, and I do not think the fact in question meets that bar, even though it does help establish the book's notability. Personally, I would leave the article as it stands in this regard. Best wishes, zazpot (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm done discussing this matter. Perhaps @Rhododendrites: or @E.M.Gregory: will discuss it. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Zazpot:Okay thank you, will take your advice, appreciate it ! Sagecandor (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Zazpot:Thank you for providing your previously uninvolved opinion. I would agree with you that a book being required reading at a prestigious institution like Tufts University does go to notability. Can this be added back to the lede now? Sagecandor (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Power~enwiki wrote: "Material only used to establish credibility should not be in the lede." I cannot find any Wikipedia guidance that backs up this claim. AFAICT, it is fine for WP:BK to be established anywhere in the article. @Sagecandor: I hope this helps answer your question. zazpot (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The Terrorists of Iraq/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 10:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- The external link in footnote 26 is dead.
- The "Further reading" section uses Harvard anchors, but the citations are not set up to point to them; this is not really a references section, rather a list of books by Nance, so use "ref=none" to disable the Harvard anchors. Are all these books relevant to this article? The Plot to Hack America appears unrelated, for example.
a peaceful resolution to the nuclear issue with the country is worthy of seeing if it can come to fruition
: clumsy phrasing.Under a similar title without the denotation of years range
: confusing; just give the revised title.- The list of "See also" is very long; some of these could probably be cut. It should be limited to articles that are directly related to the topic of this article but not linked; why do we need a link to Arab Spring, for example?
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sagecandor, are you planning to work on this? If not I'll fail the article in another week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'll work on this tomorrow. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Mike Christie Ok, I think I've addressed the above issues. Let me know if more improvements are still needed. Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think we're there. Promoting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)