Wikipedia:Peer review/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has recently achieved good article status after years of failed attempts and I wish to capitalize on this momentum by making a drive toward featured article status. Editors have made excellent progress in the past few months, but I want to know where else we can improve. Please hold your standards high and don't be afraid to raise an issue with the most minute aspect of this article. Remember: we're striving for FA-status.

Thanks, VegitaU (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted FA status, so I looked at the sources as I would have at FAC.
  • Current ref 6 McKinnon, Jim "The phone line from ..." needs a last access date.
  •  Done Done

Current ref 9 "National Commission Upoon Terrorist Attacks in the ..." needs a publisher/author

  •  Done Done
  • Current ref 19 "Profiles of 9/11" lacks a publisher
  •  Done Done
  • Current ref 20 "Broadcasting and Cable" lacks a publisher
  •  Done Done
  • You have a LOT of web site references that are lacking in last access dates. It's nice to give them even when they are just an online version of an also published report.
  •  Done Taken care of.
  • Current ref 65 "Gunaratna, Ronan "Inside Al Qaeda"" is lacking a page number
  •  Done Done
  • Current refs 68 and 69 "Al Qaedas' 1998 Fatwa" are lacking a last access date.
  •  Done Done
  • Current ref 75 is just a title "9-11 Commission, Exectutive Summary". Needs publisher at the very least.
  •  Done Done
  • Current ref 76 McDermott, Terry "Perfect Soldiers..." is lacking a page number
  •  Done Done
  • Stick with either using p. as an abbreviation for page or not using any abbreviation. Examples of both in the article's footnotes.
  • Current ref 98 "Making of the Death pilots" is this a book? Website? Needs more bibliographic information so it can be verified.
  •  Done Updated ref; This was a tough one to track down VegitaU (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 99 "Wright, Lawrence "The Looming Tower..." is lacking a page number
I don't want to get rid of this reference, but I haven't been able to sufficiently satisfy or replace it. It'll be at least another week before I can get my hands on this book. If anyone has it on hand right now, I'd appreciate the input. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Gotten rid of. -- VegitaU (talk) 05:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 100 "Al-Qaeda tape finally claims responsiblity for attacks..." is lacking a publisher
  • Foreign language refs should specify that. (Example, current ref 106 La Audience Nacional dicta la prmera sentencia..." and current ref 108 "El Supremo rebaja de 27 a 12 anos...")
  •  Done Removed foreign sources. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Updated to better source. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 138 "Hamilton Stuart, 11 September, the internet and the effects..." is lacking the web link that would be expected from the retrieved on date given.
  •  Done Not 100% sure what you meant, but I tweaked the ref to wikilink the title to the PDF document -- VegitaU (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 146 "Mendez, Juan E. Detainees in Guantanamo Bay..." is lacking a publisher
  •  Done Done
  • Current ref 148 "Lieber, Robert J. "Globalization, Culture and Indentities in Crisis..." is lacking a page number
I did not check for dead links nor did I read the prose. 19:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was going to review this, but could not bring myself to read the whole thing - sorry. I do note the lead should probably be four paragraphs by WP:LEAD. I would probably combine the first one sentence paragraph with the second one. What I read was good Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple more ideas - spell out NIST before using the abbreviation. Hoboken is a city (not a town). I read the USA Today reports on casualties at the time and I seem to recall there was a fair amount of uncertainty - some people may have died and not been reported or some missing may not have died. It is possible these issues have been better resolved since what I read. Would it make sense to add a sentence on this? It is clear a lot of work has gone into this and what I was able to read was well written. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]