Talk:Gaza City/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review[edit]

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

All I can say is, "wow". Congratulations are in order for Al Ameer son. This is a fantastic article. I have only a few comments before promoting to GA:

The lead needs to be checked for grammar (for example, missing period after "blockade by Israel" and "making" to "make", etc.)

Done. Anything else? --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is such a great read, and very well sourced. However, it is far too long. It currently takes up 45% of the article's prose. Per WP:SUMMARY, the prose should be moved into a new article called History of Gaza and should be summarized here in the main article. Obviously, with a history as extensive as Gaza the section will be longer than most, but it should be possible to summarize the information to about 1/3 of its current length.

Done. How is it now? I'll reintroduce some important wikilinks and perhaps two or three sentences of detail. ---Al Ameer son (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few issues with the prose throughout the article; mostly run-on sentences, and awkward phrasing. If you read the article out loud to yourself, you will instantly find areas that can be rephrased. For example, "As the relationship between Egypt and Canaan began to change significantly as the leaders of developing Canaanite cities entered into trade agreements with the Egyptians, supplying them with agricultural goods, Tell as-Sakan's economy improved" is awkwardly phrased. It could be simplified to "Tell as-Sakan's economy improved as Canaanite cities began to trade agricultural goods with the Egyptians."

I admit that I rushed into this nomination because usually when nominating Palestinian cities for GA, I ask a fellow user to copyedit the article, but she has been inactive for the past few weeks. So, I've had to copyedit it myself and I'm not so good at it. Therefore, could you point out where there are prose issues so that I could try to fix 'em? I'll keep a lookout too. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection headers could have better names. For many readers, there's no discernible different between the "ancient" and "antiquity".

Done. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EMBED, lists should typically be converted into prose. The list of council members and former mayors may not be terribly significant, either and are typically left out of main articles. Additionally, the source provided for the list of former mayors does not seem to have the information sourced.

Done. I removed the council table and fixed the mayors ref. I'm keeping the list of mayors, seeing as the rest of the articles on Palestinian (and Israeli) cities keep the list of the mayors. However, if it violates the MoS guidelines, I'll take care of it in a hurry. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks good for GA. I'll have this page monitored. Best always, epicAdam^(talk) 20:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm surprised to see the low level of vandalism. Of course, the semi-protect is doing its job, but the few number of vandalisms in here did shock me. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, especially surprising since the conflict here was going on recently. Al Ameer son (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will confine my comments to the history section. This section is woefully inadequate, sometimes sourced to newspapers and to general histories a century old. It is peppered with howlers, like the Ottoman army that drives Muhammad Ali from Palestine, and with myth or single-sourced events treated as simple matters of fact. And yet the larger problem is that it is assembled largely as a string of random facts, often set down by contributors patently ignorant of the context. The lack of understanding of the routes of the spice trade is remarkable. While it is true that no upper-level undergraduate would be encouraged to write a tem paper on a topic quite this large, if one did hand this in, it would not receive a passing grade. It cannot be the kind of writing that we want to certify as admirable.Historicist (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Historicist! Keep in mind that we had to reduce the History section to a third of its original size. For more detailed information on the city's history, see History of Gaza. Nearly every source used is from a book, so I don't see any newspaper references (unless you mean the BBC which is used in the Palestinian control section frequently). Could you please point out where you specifically see problems so we could fix them. Thank you. I'll take a scan of the entire section anyhow. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get back to this, but the problem is that some books are more reliable than others, I spotted one from 1913, and new knowledge does exist. And there are complex issues here. Do take a look at the Muhammad Ali/Ottoman period - it was the British/French coalition that forces him out of the Levant, not the Ottomans. And I seem to recall that the Hasmonean conquest was part of a complex, multi sidees, multi-year series of wars. Also, the spice trade, a very complex trade that shifted routes repeatedly, Gulf of Eilat, Red Sea, depending on who controlled what. It was not the sem route through the various imperial periods. the point is that Gaza prospers - or not - depending on what route the spice trade is taking, which depends on which Empire sits astride which route. And since it varies across time, sweeping statements tha ttake in several millenia of "the spice trade" are overly simplistic. Also, some trade items (faceted gems, spices from the Spice islands of insular South Asia) only come into the mediterranean trade well into your era. You need at least to show how the trade routes make Gaza wax and wane as a city and a port. and when dealing with guys like Samson for whom there is a sole source, the Bible, you have to treat it like we treat Herodotus or Ibn batutta in cases where there there is no corroborating source, "according to Herodotus..." , Samson certaily ought to be in there, but "assording to the Book of Judges..."Historicist (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Actually, after reading a little on Dhaher al-Omar about a month ago, I am well aware that the British were truly behind the Ottoman revival in Palestine (the Russians supported al-Omar and the Egyptians and so Britain supported the Ottomans against what they saw as Russian proxies - basically...). So I will make the necessary clarifications there (btw most of the sources do support what you're saying, including the older ones which contain a lot of useful info that the new ones don't). About the Hasmonean conquest... I just used what I got from Dumper (2007), Studium Biblicum Fransicanum - Jerusalem, and Ring (1994). They didn't write about the "complex, multi-sided, multi-year series of wars", although that might be true, the article is on Gaza and should stay as specific as possible to the city. This does seem like good background info though, so you should certainly add it to the History of Gaza article. The spice trade is too complex to fully discuss in this article so I think a general overview statement suffices. We could slightly reword it to let the reader know that Gaza wasn't always on the trade route. Details on how the route causes the city to prosper and decline has a more suitable place in the History of Gaza article. I forgot that Samson was a Biblical figure and the Bible was the only source. I'll fix this problem now. Again, thanks. Hopefully the changes will improve the article further. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer[edit]

As it appears that the original reviewer has disappeared I aim to complete the review. Firstly, I must say that I am very impressed with this article. Clearly there are no quick fail problems. I have spotted a few minor points of prose, which I will copy-edit myself. I will then check the GA criteria below. I am sorry that you have had to wait so long for this process to be completed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! About the wait, it's not a problem, I'm in no rush. Thanks for reviewing the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
The article is well written, I have made a few copy-edits in the interests of grammar and clarity. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (MoS):
The article conforms with Manual of Style guidelines for Good Articles. Others have commented on the length of the history section, but for a city of such antiquity it is not disproportionate. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
The article is well referenced, points raised by Historicist appear to have have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (citations to reliable sources):
All references are to reliable sources. I fixed one dead link. the Times story on white phosphorus had changed URL. Newspaper and other on-line sources, such as the BBC, frequently do this, they need keeping an eye on. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
c (OR):
I find no evidence of Original Research. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
The article covers all major aspects of the subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (focused):
It remains focussed on the subject matter throughout. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
In my opinion the article is free of bias. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
The article is stable, no edit-warring. Discussions kept to talk page, minor vandaluism promptly reverted. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
All images used are tagged with suitable licenses or fair use rationales. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
All images are suitably captioned
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Congratulations, I have no hesitation in passing this article to Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! I'm glad it passed, it's made made my day. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.