Talk:Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Richard Nevell (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Personisinsterest (talk · contribs) 11:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Just want to say, this is my first GA review. Anyway, the article seems fine, and it's about an important topic. Will review soon. Personisinsterest (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments, suggestions

I made a few minor edits: Took away a redlink, added some commas, and corrected some numbers from October 7th. (Not anyone's fault, new data came out). I also moved a statement from one section to another because I thought it fit better there, but I removed it once I saw it was already there. Kept it removed from the other section because it was in the other. Doesn't matter. Sorry.

Anyway, I would suggest linking Gaza genocide in sentences about the ICJ case. I would say to make a Background section and put "Cultural heritage in Gaza" and "Destruction of cultural heritage" in it, with the exception of the second paragraph of the latter which can go to events. And finish refs 4 and 5. Doesn't matter for the review, just a suggestion.

Review

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 - Cultural genocide is a value-laden term.

2) Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check

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 (32.4% on Earwig, only significant thing is a quote.)

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic - Yes, except for the lead. The first paragraph is fine, but the lead, which is supposed to address the main aspects of the topic, doesn't here. It dedicates a paragraph to the genocide accusations (which do have a place, just not as a paragraph) which are only mentioned once in the body. I feel the last paragraph should hold the genocide accusations, to tie it into the systemic cultural destruction. Anyway, there should be a paragraph in the middle that talks about some specific cultural destruction, as that is the main part of the article.

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each - Only thing is that it should be worded "The destruction has been characterized by some as cultural genocide" in the lead. Without this, it gives the false impression that this is a mainstream conclusion, and not just something that many but only some analysts say.

5) Stable:

5) Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

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

6b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Overall: - Great article, just fix lead. @Richard Nevell

Thank you for the helpful feedback, Personisinsterest. Good point about the lead so I'll get onto that. I saw a recent new story about the Great Omari Mosque which may need to be integrated into the article, so I'll look into that at the same time. I should be able to get to that this week. Hopefully sooner rather than later but it's shaping up to be a busy one. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for bringing this issue to light. Personisinsterest (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)