Talk:Mandate for Palestine/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, this seems to have waited way too long already, so I'll have a look soon. It will probably also take a while to review. In the meantime, some preliminary issues below. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of duplinks, you can highlight them with this script:[1] Done

The script still shows three duplinks within the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Those are from additions I made after the original check. Now removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of paragraphs ending without citation, you should probably skim through the entire article for this. Done
The "Key Mandate dates" section could need citations for the info there. Done
This[2] file only has a US PD tag, yet it is from UK archives... Done
Likewise with this:[3] Done
And this:[4] Done
This image[5] could need to cite on Commons what it is based on. map replaced with one with much clearer sourcing
There seems to be unneeded extra space between some words and citations, I removed some, but could be checked throughout. Done
I'm sure there will be, as with the Balfour article, complaints about heavy quoting of copyrighted texts here, if you take it to FAC. Perhaps some of it could be snipped? Covered in further comments below Onceinawhile (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote g needs a citation. Done
As it still seems like significant additions of text are being made/are to be added (Selfstudier should probably be added to this conversation), I'll wait before I review the text until this has settled down, and the article structure has stabilised. Could also be good to have that move request settled within the time-frame of this review. I'll keep this review open for as long as it takes (no need to worry about the "seven days" mumbo jumbo). FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: thank you and I agree that makes sense. This has been a helpful catalyst to bring some momentum back and identify some areas to focus on. I’ll let you know when I've worked through them. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shrike[edit]

I am not sure that I should post here or an article talk page in new section.Several problem that I noticed:

Usage of primary or old sources. For such well learned and controversial subject many books were written so there are no need to use such sources and if information doesn't appear in them then it doesn't relevant and shouldn't be included in our article. all resolved per comment further below
Usage of sources that don't talk about the topic of the article thus violation WP:OR.For example this line at the time an Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population (around 3–5% of the total).Sourced to Bussow that I didn't found the information there and specially connected to the mandate and other source that in not in open view.Also this line might have POV problem because we mention only one factoid about the area.We for example doesn't mention historical Jewish connection to it.I suggest we remove that. --Shrike (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

removed, and following text at Balfour Declaration article

User:Onceinawhile Again what source discuss it?Is not clear.Also like I said its pov a problem mention "only that there are minority of Jews" while omitting other factors.--Shrike (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a couple of refs which specifically juxtapose the Declaration against the Jewish minority population in the same way. It is this specific point which makes the Balfour Declaration unique in international relations. Note that our article Balfour Declaration made FA, and TFA, with this construct in the first sentence of the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again it may be WP:DUE in Balfour declaration article but not here.We talk only about the document if the sources discuss declaration in context of the mandate we may include it but if it not then we shouldn't as declaration is large topic by itself so we can't cherry pick sources to give WP:UNDUE representation to one fact among many as is goes against our policies --Shrike (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I cannot understand your post. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly can't you understand?I suggest to remove this line --Shrike (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand the reason for your view. The Balfour Declaration was the crucial predecessor of the mandate, so we must include the key facets of that declaration. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By late 1917, in the lead up to the Balfour Declaration, the wider war had reached a stalemate, with two of Britain's allies not fully engaged: the United States had yet to suffer a casualty, and the Russians were in the midst of a revolution I didn't found Balfour Declaration in the given source [6]

added Gelvin

The problem that Gelvin discuss it in context of Balfour declaration and not mandate.I think this line doesn't belong to the article --Shrike (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This section is called “Balfour Declaration”, so it is right that sources discuss that topic. The section, including this particular sentence, is no more than a version of the lede at the main article, which is best practice. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the article is about mandate document also naming of the section is editorial decision and maybe WP:OR too --Shrike (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand this either. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest discussing Balfour declaration only in contexts of mandate document.You seem want to widen the scope --Shrike (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Balfour Declaration was the crucial predecessor of the mandate. If we don't explain why it was issued, then this article will not be set in its appropriate context per WP:FA? 1b. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only looking at the first two lines of the body I have found plenty problems with sourcing I don't think this article ready for GA review yet especially on such controversial subject --Shrike (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fine to bring up issues here too. Not sure if it is true primary sources should be excluded entirely as long as more recent sources are used to discuss them, but adittional recent analysis is of course a good idea, if it exists. As for being GA ready, GAN is for improving articles, so unless these problems are very obvious (the trouble here seems to be minor, we can always add more points of view), they can be dealt with during the review. It might not be ready for FAC, but this is not a FAC nomination anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree if modern scholarly sources discuss relevant quotes they could be brought.But the problem is cherry picking of primary source to promote certain WP:POV so its always better to see what recent WP:RS says about the subject and there are plenty of it --Shrike (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting this. For all the primary sources I brought, they are definitely covered in secondary sources as that will be where I read them originally. I will add the secondary references alongside. For those I didn’t bring myself, I’ll check through. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that all of the refs highlighted by Shrike pre-date my work on this article by many years – most if not all have been in the article for more than a decade. I am working through them to confirm. One point to note: Quincy Wright is not a primary source. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, would be best to get the issues brought up in the section here sorted out before the review can continue (the text should preferably be stable). FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

all primary sources now have a secondary source as well.Onceinawhile (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Status query[edit]

FunkMonk, Onceinawhile, where does this nomination and review stand? As best I can tell, while there have been edits on the article over the past couple of months, the last post here was on March 2, over two months ago. Can this move forward? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlueMoonset, thanks for the prompter. I had been moving slowly and spending time fixing adjacent articles; I will accelerate the effort on this now. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for review[edit]

@FunkMonk and Shrike: I am pleased to confirm that I have now resolved all the points raised in the comments from you both. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was anything done withy the extensive quotes? FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there has been some trimming but not material. And some more have been added. If ok with you I'd rather leave this until later in the process - it'll be easier to assess in the round once the main body of the article is up to scratch. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'd like to see if Shrike has some major suggestions for changes before I go on. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also wait until the renewed activity below and on the talk page has settled down (odd how it always erupts just as I'm about to begin). FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems discussion has stalled, but are the talk page issues resolved? FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @FunkMonk: yes I believe they are. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Makeandtoss[edit]

Hello @Onceinawhile:. Great job! The article is exceptionally well-written; prose-wise and content-wise. In fact I am most impressed by the due weight that Transjordan has been given. Usually, it is completely ignored in these articles. However I feel the Balfour Declaration subsection is missing out on the (conflicting) arrangements made by the British with the Sharifian King Hussein. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

added background information on the British agreement with Hussein and also with the French Onceinawhile (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Makeandtoss. Do you mind if I move this comment onto the GA review page? It will help me keep track.

I agree on your comment, not least because that agreement was the root of the reason why Abdullah was given Transjordan.

What do you think of the article Transjordan memorandum? I created it many years ago, and now I’m wondering whether it wouldn’t be better merged in to the mandate page.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: Go ahead. That is a separate memorandum so I would rather have a standalone articlee. Makeandtoss (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss: ok thank you – happy to keep it as a separate article. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continued review[edit]

I still see a lot of duplinks throughout, maybe they were introduced in the meantime? Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote h has no source. Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is permitted, but many paragraphs end simply with footnotes, but no citations. I assume the citations are given in the footnotes, but I would assume everything has to be sourced within the article body itself? I have reviewed the footnotes. The way they are working, in the cases where the reference is in the note and not the body, is that the footnote is acting as the reference, providing more detail. If this needs to be solved, the sfn reference from the footnote can be duplicated in the body, next to the footnote reference. It strikes me as duplication, but I don’t mind. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I would assume they would have to be duplicated, because it's quite a detour to have to find them in the footnotes. I am not sure, though, so I'll ping Brianboulton and Lingzhi2, who often do source reviews at FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no answer, will ping Gog the Mild too. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, "sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged", otherwise they are "desirable". However, the GAN criteria suggest, they are a little vague, that inline citations are needed for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". If something not in one of those categories is uncited, it still meets the GA criteria. Much of the material under discussion seems to me to be of this type, ie not requiring a cite. So if it is covered in the footnote that is a bonus. If a statement does fall into one of these categories then IMO it needs directly citing, even if this duplicates a cite in the footnote next to it. IHTH. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm pretty sure the intention is to take it to FAC too, would that make a difference, Gog the Mild? FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly, no. In practice, the nominator has a low to negligible chance of persuading four plus reviewers to accept it at FAC without everything having an inline cite. Given that the fix is simple and easy I would suggest that the nominator simply bites the bullet. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the tables under "Key dates from Balfour Declaration to Mandate becoming effective" have sources, but a few don't. Done Onceinawhile (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the images have very vague source info (just saying "Her Majesty's Stationery Office", "League of Nations", "Times of London" and such). If these were taken form online sources, links should be added. Done

@FunkMonk: thanks for these; all comments have been processed per above. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait, a bit more below. I think I will be done within the week .FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"war on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, the British War Cabinet began to consider the future of Palestine,[1] at the time an Ottoman region" Why is Ottoman only linked at second mention? DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional terms and names in the image captions could be linked. Done Onceinawhile (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"the future of Palestine" Perhaps link to Palestine (region). DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"in the lead up to the Balfour Declaration" All terms should be linked at their first occurrence outside the intro too.

I did away with the BDs in sections other than the lead, is it a rule that there must be another outside the lead?Selfstudier (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have added the link Onceinawhile (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have several terms linked at second occurrence, and often never. Would be good to go through this carefully and add links (while of course avoiding duplinks). Also, you link the declaration again under "its own Balfour Declaration of 1917". <-This last one is DoneSelfstudier (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through and moved numerous links to their first occurrence, and added new links where they didn't exist. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"and the Russians were in the midst of a revolution" Link their revolution. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WW1 also needs a link. It is linked in the lead, does it need another outside the lead? If not DoneSelfstudier (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands" In whose words? Hyperbolic quotes need in text attribution. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"in other countries outside of Palestine" "other" seems redundant. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say both "authorised" and "recognize", check such endings throughout to make it consistent. Since the subject has a strong UK connection, the former spelling would be best. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC) I can see this is a problem throughout, even in the footnotes. Also, most of the quotes use "ise" endings, which would also support the article doing so in general.[reply]
"in a reference to US President Woodrow Wilson's policy of self determination" The policy is already linked, and you don't have to spell out his full name at second mention (you present him again later, "U.S. President Woodrow Wilson"). DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Same with other full names.[reply]
"and continued the fight known as the Turkish War of Independence" Already mentioned and linked earlier. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Curzon is never linked or presented. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Mr. Frankfurter (as he than was)" Not sure what this means? DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking closer, I think the very lengthy quotes from recent publications, such as McTague 1980, will definitely be problematic at FAC, due to copyright issues. I think the individual quotes will have to be cut down considerably. Keep in mind this is not an issue with the public domain quotes, but the rules are much stricter when it comes to copyright, so it is probably best to deal with these issues before FAC to prevent lengthy discussions and instant opposes.

I have been trying to land on a rule of thumb for acceptable size here. Our guideline says: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea... Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." An ANI thread interpreting this from two years ago includes comments such as: "de minimis refers to each individual source; we never use more than a paragraph" and "We do not have extensive quotation from one source--the longest quote is 365 words long."

I have been reducing unnecessary material from the quotations, and retaining only the information which provides critical context and clarity in a manner in which paraphrasing could not replicate. I will confirm later on when done.

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have shortened or remove entirely a number of unnecessary quotations. We now never use more than a paragraph. And the longest quote used is just 297 words (which incidentally is from a source, Wright 1930, which is most likely out copyright. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"that direct negotiations begun between" Began? DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Balfour authorized 30-year-old diplomatic secretary Eric Forbes Adam to begin negotiations with the Zionist Organization. On the Zionist side, the drafting was led by 24-year-old Benjamin V Cohen" Why is it important to note their ages? You don't do this for any other characters. If their ages have significance and had any bearing on events and how they were perceived, this should be discussed in the text, otherwise it just sticks out. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Benjamin V Cohen" V.? DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"submitted by Lord Balfour, then Lord President of the Council," Not sure why this level of detail is necessary in image captions, better keep it in the article body. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"the approval of the Council of the League of Nations.." Any reason for the double ..? DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The blue links on blue backgrounds in some of the quote boxes are rather unfortunate (my vision is not particularly good, and I cna't be the only one): I wonder if either the links could simply be remove,d as they are mostly present in the article body anyway, or the background colour could be changed?

This was not picked up before in say, Balfour Declaration article. I changed one background to light grey, how is it?Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I changed the other one. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"On the way, delegation held meetings" The delegation? DoneSelfstudier (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"opinion became increasingly unfavourable to state support for Zionism" You could explain why. The following quote does so in part, but it is a bit unclear. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Weizmann noted in his memoirs that he considered the most important part of the mandate, and the most difficult negotiation, was the clause" Something wrong here. "that what he considered"? DoneSelfstudier (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is still a good deal of duplinks throughout, which seem not to have been detected by the script because they are redirects.

Done I have been through and removed more of these. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You say both Transjordan and Trans-Jordan, any reason for the inconsistency?

I don't know the rule here, problem is that there are official documents (eg cmd 3488 of 1928 and the passports) that use Trans-Jordan while many sources (and us) use Transjordan. We could just use the latter throughout for a slight abuse of sources? Apart from this, there was I believe usage of Transjordania to mean the region prior to creation of the Emirate, I need to check that.Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have removed any remaining references, outside of quotes, to the antiquated forms of the terms. Now it is just "Transjordan", which was judged by our community here to be the common name. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"At the Battle of Maysalun on 23 July 1920, the French removed the newly proclaimed nationalist government of Hashim al-Atassi and expelled King Faisal from Syria." The battle should be linked, and I think you could make clearer earlier in the sentence that all of this relates to Syria. Damascus state could also be linked. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Neither Palestinian nor any other Arabs" Palestinans? Think this one is OK ie Palestinian Arabs DoneSelfstudier (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"this border separated Britain and France" Is this the right way to put it? Not French and British controlled areas? Done fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"that this border separated Britain and France and that it ran through heavily populated areas" You could state that these areas were (Syria/Lebanon). Now, it is only mkentioned at the end of that section which would make it unclear for unfamiliar readers. Done I added a link further up to explain this. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"nder the Arab administration of Occupied Enemy Territory Administration East (OETA East)" Mentioned earlier than that, but only presented down under "Palestine-Transjordan border". DoneSelfstudier (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Palestine".[k]The British" Missing space. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"and they didn't have" Contractions are discouraged. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"who "disregarded both Husein in Mecca and Feisal in Damascus with impunity" According to who? In text attribution is needed for hyperbolic statements. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say both Hijaz and Hejaz outside quotes. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"This followed a proposal from Lawrence" Lawrence is neither presented or linked until this point. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could there be more discussion of the long term consequences and later scholarly views? Perhaps some of the quotes under "Explanatory notes and scholarly perspectives" could rather be summarised and discussed in-text in a final section.

Done Long term consequences and later scholarly views are now well covered in the revised "key issues" and "impact and termination" sections of the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Especially something like "the words of Professor of Modern Jewish History Bernard Wasserstein, to result in "the myth of Palestine's 'first partition' [which became] part of the concept of 'Greater Israel' and of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement" seems like it would belong in a section about consequences rather where it is now (it seems somewhat misplaced in the historical context). Also I remember a Zionist claim that "the Arabs got their state when they got Jordan", which might be discussed. Done This now is placed better with the rest of the section being moved elsewhere. I found a good source connecting the Jordan-is-Palestine point. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"after the Arab Kingdom in Damascus was toppled by the French" This does not seem to be spelled out outside the intro. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century" Only stated in intro, which should not have unique info. removed from lede as unnecessary detail Onceinawhile (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"was agreed upon in the Paulet–Newcombe Agreement" Only mentioned in intro. Added in main body Onceinawhile (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The British controlled Palestine for almost three decades, overseeing a succession of protests, riots and revolts between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities." Not stated or elaborated upon outside the intro. Done via a restructure of the final section to make room for this. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Transjordan became a no man's land after the French defeated Faisal's army" Only stated in intro. And I think you could discuss more of what's outlined under footnote l in the article body, as it seems to explain some circumstances left vague there. Overall, the whole business with the Hashemites (a term only used once) in relation to the Zionists could be elaborated a bit; who were they, what did they want, and what happened to them. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC) (linked out and see also Sharifian Solution article, is that enough?)[reply]
Likewise, you could also give more background on the Zionists and what they wanted. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC) (see similar point below)[reply]
Little word on what the local Palestinian Arabs wanted and their movements. Yes, they were deliberately kept out of many negotiations it seems, but do we know what they would have demanded? This does seem to be in the article? (1921–22: Palestinian Arab attempted involvement section). DoneSelfstudier (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an image and descriptive caption to make this more clear. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And did they (those in what became Transjordan) even accept Hashemite rule? Done added confirmation. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"and allowed the Mandatory there "to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions." Why include this lengthy quote, out of so many, in the intro? Seems rather arbitrary, and could be summarised or cut. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is little elaboration on the Zionist claims to more of Transjordan; what did they want and why? One question mentions water, but little is discussed in the article. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Added material about the Zionist desiderata, might need tidying up a little.[reply]
Some of the "Primary supporting quotes" are not quotes (such as g, q and m), but rather seem to be footnotes. Done These have been fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"incorporated the Balfdur Declaration" This is in a quote, but must be a typo? DoneSelfstudier (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes s and t are almost identical. DoneSelfstudier (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That should be most, Onceinawhile. I haven't looked closely at the "Explanatory notes and scholarly perspectives", because I don't believe they can survive FAC in their present state, but will leave it for those reviewers. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By chance I just read article[7], which mentions that the 1919 King–Crane commission found that many locals wanted the to US take over the Syria mandate (and what was included in it). Perhaps worth a mention, if it can be corroborated by other sources. "For one of the commission’s conclusions – and Arab scholars have confirmed its veracity – was that most of the people of the Middle East region wanted to live under an American mandate. In other words, most trusted the US above all other western powers (they hated the French but also distrusted the British) to protect their unitary nation as it moved towards independence."

I have been looking for the full K-C report for a long time, and as a result of your question I have finally managed to find it. I spent some time bringing together the tables to create the image on the right which covers the results of the survey. Fisk's statement is likely based on the K-C confidential appendix [8] which says "Practically all of the Moslems, who number about four-fifths of the population of Syria, are for America as their first choice. It is true that there was little direct expression of this in Palestine, since after the first declarations at Jaffa, the question of choice of mandate was held up and referred to Damascus. Possibly this was done under instructions from the Emir Feisal, who may have been trying to hold the field for Britain. If so the evidence of sincere declaration for America is all the stronger, since the Congress reached unanimity for America. As for the Christians, while comparatively few declared directly for America as first choice—only a part of the Protestants and Syrian Orthodox and Armenians—they were bound by old ties and recent agreements to declare for Britain or France, but a large proportion mentioned America as second choice, and stated that they would welcome her, while there were abundant assurances that an American mandate would be satisfactory to practically all. The [Page 855]members of the Commission can entertain no doubt of the genuineness of the desire for the United States as mandatory power, in view of the countless earnest appeals, both by individuals and groups, and of the manifest enthusiasm shown on many occasions, in spite of the Commission’s discouragement of demonstrations and avoidance of every form of ostentation. It was furthermore always possible to ask why a group or individual objected to France or England, but not to ask why a group failed to declare for the United States. It is of course also a fact that France and only less openly England were making bids for the mandate, while the United States was not."

The table shows that K-C's statement is not numerically provable in Palestine.

So for now I have left this out as a complicating factor.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: a quick note to thank you for these excellent and detailed comments. I will work through them and ping you when complete. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: I changed background colour in one of the boxes, how does it look? If it still bad, can you choose one color here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_colors#X11_color_names Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think the color you picked works well, and I have changed the other to match. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New status query[edit]

What's the status on this? It looked like it was going well until late july, now suddenly nothing. Hopefully this is close to being wrapped up. Wizardman 02:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging FunkMonk, Selfstudier, and Onceinawhile, in the hopes that they can answer Wizardman's query. Thanks to you all for your work on this review and nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yes, my fault – I have been too busy. FunkMonk’s final set of excellent comments have been part-implemented. I will finish the job now. Thank you for the prompt. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am making good progress. I need to step back to figure out how to implement the remaining points. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk and Selfstudier: I believe there are now just two issues remaining: the Transjordan section and the footnotes. I have temporarily collapsed all the comments that I consider fully resolved. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: I think I made enough amendments now to deal with TJ/Hashemite/Zionist connections.Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: Thank you. Fully agree. I have also improved the flow by breaking up what was a very long section and spreading it around the article in the logical sections. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments resolved[edit]

@FunkMonk: thanks again for your excellent comments, and your patience in seeing them resolved. I have finally finished going through them, and together with SelfStudier have answered each individually above. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I will go through the points in the coming days. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks fine to me now, all that is left seems to be a bit of duplinking within some sections, which can be found with the script. Other than that, getting such an important/controversial article to peer review before FAC wouldn't hurt, but it's up to you. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: thank you very much.

I have removed the remaining duplinks. It always amazes me how they keep finding their way back in...

I agree with you re peer review. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a consequence of more than one editor working on the article, but anyhow, looks good now,so I'll promote. Good luck with the rest! FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: thank you for this, and for all your support and guidance in getting the article to this point. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]