Talk:Black September/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Alex Shih (talk · contribs) 15:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting topic and article appears to be in refined quality. I'll be reviewing this according to the GA criteria in the coming days. Alex Shih (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede

• Jordan allowed the fedayeen to leave for Lebanon through Syria, later leading up to the Lebanese Civil War in 1975.: It's not entirely clear to me by reading this sentence that why the increase of fedayeen in Lebanon directly led to the Lebanese Civil War. Were they the main reason why the civil war happened? If so, the Lebanon section in the article should be expanded.
• The Black September Organization was founded the same year: Where this sentence is located right now makes it sound like the organization was founded in 1975, which is not the case. I would switch this part with the part above to present a better chronological sequence. Alex Shih (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Addressing issues

Better now? They weren't the main cause of conflict, but became a combatant. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, looks good. Sorry for the late response. Here are the rest of my review. Alex Shih (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The background is tricky because the name of the conflict refers to the events from the beginning of September, but generally the name is attributed to tensions between the two sides even before September..

Decapitlized intelligence, yes he was appointed as director.

The PLO's headquarters were in Amman, and they ignored the countries laws, so "recapture" in this context means as to restore sovereignty. Nothing special about the 60th bridge, do you want me to remove that piece of information?

Changed to "Jordan feared foreign intervention in the events in support of the fedayeen"

Changed to "David Raab, one of the plane hijacking hostages,"

The 54 hostages are the ones from the hijackings..

Changed to "Within the period following the ceasefire, Hussein publicly revealed that"

@Alex Shih: Thank you! Makeandtoss (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Thank you for addressing the concerns with such diligence! I will do another cold reading of the article tomorrow and then complete the GA checklist. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Black September

• I couldn't find any major concerns in the background section. Although I think it should be condensed, as currently the section appears to be longer than the main section.
• Natheer Rasheed, the Intelligence director: Is there a reason why Intelligence is capitalized here? By the way, was he appointed as the director of General Intelligence Directorate (Jordan)?
• The decision to recapture my capital: The King's quote is confusing; at which point was Amman "captured" by the fedayeen? Their presence in the capital should be clarified more (right now my impression from reading the content is that they were localized to shelling the post office and confronting the Jordanian Army in various part of the city. Also, I think it'll be helpful to explain more about 60th Armoured Brigade; of all the Jordanian forces, what's the significance of this brigade?
• Jordan feared foreign intervention in the events: Why?
• Hostage David Raab: It's not immediately clear what kind of hostage this person is. Was he one of the "68 foreign nationals hostage in two Amman hotels"? I think it's difficult to make the connection for the readers at this point when there are so much going on, so a short explanation here would probably be helpful.
• capture of about 50 British, German, and U.S. citizens in Jordan by PLO forces: Wait, is this the 68 foreign nationals mentioned earlier? Or was this a different group of hostages not documented?
• Nasser died the following day of a heart attack and Chinese advisors: What relevance does the death of Nasser and Chinese advisors have in this context?

That's all about it from me for now. Really good work, thank you! Alex Shih (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The criteria

1. Well written: Reading through the article several times, I am comfortable to say the article is fairly well-written, and the format is consistent with the manual of style.
2. Verfiable: with the article being well-referenced, with inline citations supporting claims made in every paragraph.
3. Broad in its coverage: but not too broad, which was addressed in my original concern, and I was satisfied with the response and the subsequent update.
4. Neutrality: With a potentially contentious topic (involving politics/history of the Middle East), the article manages well to represent viewpoints from different involved parties.
5. Stable: Minimal changes have been made to the article since the end of August according to the revision history.
6. Images: With a total of 13 images and 1 map all relevant to the topic, the article is well illustrated. I am passing this article as a Good Article based on the criteria. Thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)