Talk:One Million Plan/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Fiamh (talk · contribs) 21:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this soon. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 21:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	According to MOS:LEDE it should be kept to four paragraphs. Done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Per MOS:QUOTE, any disputed opinion needs in-text attribution. Not doing so leads to confusion, from the context it seems like "no justification..." and "undue hardship" are quotes from contemporary Israeli leaders, actually it is from the authors of a history book. Done Onceinawhile (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Overall, the article would benefit from reducing the number of quotes by paraphrasing. Done Onceinawhile (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Incorrect formatting in some of the quotes, for instance Eyal capitalizes "Jews" but in your quote that's not capitalized. Done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:External links, external links are almost never allowed in running text. The one to Piera Rossetto does not meet these requirements. Done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Per MOS:LAYOUT, you should avoid short and choppy paragraphs. Try to merge them into other paragraphs. Done Onceinawhile (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Headings should be in sentence case, e.g. "Following the establishment of Israel" Done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Minor close paraphrasing from one source: "An important part of the plans and recommendations were implemented following the creation of Israel." and "An important part of the One Million Plan Planning Committee's plans and recommendations were implemented following the creation of Israel." "here". removed Onceinawhile (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	~~Since being nominated the article has been edited about 26 times. There have been significant content disputes and large blocs of text—entire sections—added.~~ It has now become stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	What makes File:PikiWiki Israel 20841 The Palmach.jpg free in the US? I have removed the picture from the Template, and opened a discussion at the template talk. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Hi @Fiamh: many thanks for your assessment. I will work through your comments in 1b. With respect to 5, it has now stablized (it has been a month since anyone other than you or me made a non-minor edit); is this sufficient or would you like to wait longer? Onceinawhile (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, yes, I'd count it as stable now. I'll start looking through the rest of the criteria. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fiamh: Thanks again for your review. I have addressed all your comments above. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's been considerable improvement and I believe it now meets the GA criteria. Great work! Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 18:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]