Talk:Slovak Three/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Catrìona (talk · contribs) 02:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you again, Serial Number. This article looks in good shape as usual. Catrìona (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in future you might consider listing with WP:GOCE before a GA nomination. Catrìona (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Be consistent in using "Slovak" or "Slovakian", but not both.

Sorry, Catrìona, it's a form of localised WP:BIAS I'm afraid: The English newspapers I used as sources are sloppy and use the terms interchangeably, as did I. Although here at least we should strive for consistency of course. Can you advise, perhaps, which one you think is more encyclopaedic? I use the term "Slovak Three" because that's what the papers called them. But is Slovak more informal—like slang—than Slovakian?

Looking at NGRAMS, it looks like Slovak is significantly more common (that's what I use myself). Non-RS internet pundits argue that "Slovak" is better, as an analogue to "Czech" and more similar to the Slovak language term that it was borrowed from, Slovák. See also this dicussion in which there were three votes for "Slovak" and only one for "Slovakian"; it was claimed that "Slovakian" was BrE, but that no source was cited and that claim doesn't seem to be borne out by the sources that you have cited in this article. It seems easier just to use "Slovak" consistently, since the sources do refer to the "Slovak Three" and not the "Slovakian Three."

OK, thank a lot—done

all~~, as it turned out,~~ intercepted and overheard by MI6 editorializing

Removed.

Just a thought for the first sentence, to more concisely express what the Slovak Three were notable for: The Slovak Three[1][note 1] were three Real IRA members—Michael Christopher McDonald, Declan John Rafferty and Fintan Paul O'Farrell[2]—who were arrested in a MI5 sting operation in Slovakia in 2001, while attempting to obtain weapons frm Iraqi agents for terrorist attacks against Britain.

Background

Resolved

waging a campaign against the British government be clear that this is an "armed" campaign

Added.

ProvisionalQuartermaster and Executive-member — is this right?

Heh! No, rm "Provo"

In November the same year, they formed a new group —who is "they"?

Added "McKevitt and his supporters".

However, this was limited in supply. I would cut, implied by previous sentence

done

Within a few years, the group was able to supplement its equipment with arms and explosives imported from Eastern Europe, particularly from Croatia and surrounding countries,[9] which had a flourishing black market in weaponry following the civil wars. Split and rephrase, I would have not described Croatia as Eastern Europe. You might just say that they got arms from the former Yugoslavia. Even if you include the word "Yugoslav" somewhere, I would plainlink Yugoslav Wars to avoid an Easter egg.

Right: I've tweaked this, split the sentence, reworded so as to avoid any geographical embarrassments, and linked directly to Yugoslav wars; see what you think?

In July 2000, a second attempt was foiled by the Croatian police What first attempt?

Indeed! I don't know, so have reworded and used it was an example.

were known to the Gardai could be more specific about what the Gardai knew about them

Thanks for adding that bit about "their IRA activities"; I might call it "Republican activities" as they probably did non-military stuff too. But there's no real detail I'm afraid, although I'm looking and continue to look!

Operation Samnite

Resolved

it has been suggested by whom?

See answer to point below

get rid of most of its money why do they want to do this?

This is rather embarrassing and the result of sloppy source reading. It turns out that the Clarke article I used actually discusses a similar MI5 op in France a few years later, and it is there that they want to get rid of all their cash. So: I've had to remove the Clarke source, as it doesn't mention the Slovak 3 at all. Instead, I've tweaked the phrasing and used existing sources (and found a new one) to ref what remains.

Incidentally, although it's completely OR (and in any case irrelevant!) if I had to guess why they would want to offload their cash, it's probably that bank accounts with large sums in attract attention and leave a paper trail.

from Saddam Hussein sounds like Hussein is a place

"Sent by"?

known to favour do you mean "suspected to possess"? The linked article is about a hypothetical program, not a real weapon

agree

PSNI What is this?

Plainlink to Police Service of Northern Ireland

established their bona fides unnecessarily idiomatic, suggest establish trust/working relationship or similar. Also there was no "good faith" on the part of the British operatives.

Yes :) used "working relationship"

O'Farrell and Rafferty, reported the Telegraph, claimed to the MI5 agents have been part of the team which had launched rockets at MI6's headquarters the previous year You mean they claimed that they were part of the team?

Yes, I've tweaked the wording to clarify (hopefully)

Extradition

State explicitly that Slovakia denied the appeal

Done; in fact, the section has been slightly expanded with more detail

When were they physically extradited?

Dates added

Were the Slovak lawyers state-provided or privately hired?

I'm afraid I couldn't find that; I suspect local news outlets might come on handy for providing more details about the Slovak end of things.

In general, I would avoid words like "moaned" for the POV overtones

Absolutely :) thanks for getting rid

He also noted that, in Ireland, Michael McKevitt had by now been accused of of leading the Real IRA: ried, found guilty and imprisoned , McKevit had, Emmerson remnded the court, only received 20 years. I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

Sorry, Catrìona (and apologies for all the pings!) I've rephrased it so it's clearer what the feller meant (although spelling most of it correctly would have helped!): Emmerson also reminded the court that, in Ireland, Michael McKevitt had recently been tried and found guilty of leading the Real IRA, but had only received 20 years. Better? ——SerialNumber54129 18:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this Catrìona, and it's always a pleasure to see you around :) I saw your DYK just under mine yesterday, an amusing coincidence! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 10:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; it's an interesting topic! If you fix the issues above, I'll pass it. I have checked some sources and will AGF on the rest. Catrìona (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: Thals very much for the thorough review. as you can see, I've expanded it quite a lot, mostly in the Sentencing section: I'd forgotten they appealed in the UK too, and so filled that gap in. Look: as I mentioned above, I think local sources would be useful for expanding it further, as well as countering bias (and to say nothing of WP:FACR #1a & 1b!). Any thoughts? ——SerialNumber54129 15:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have no experience with FAC, so can't help there if that's where you're headed. Slovak language media would certainly give a different perspective and is valuable to include. I suspect this event is probably better covered in English media anyway, but I haven't checked. I don't know what your language skills are like. Google translate does OK with Slovak -> English, but basing an article on your interpretation of Google translate results is not exactly a highly recommended practice, because there is a high potential for misunderstandings. Catrìona (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: Well, it would make a change from my usual stuff there, but comprehensiveness is important, so some Slovak sources would probably be essential. FYI, my language skills are even less good than my copy-editing skills :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Catrìona: Everything OK with this? I'm starting to suspect you've discovered something particularly egregious... ;) ——SerialNumber54129 20:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Serial Number 54129: you made some large additions and I wanted to wait until you were done before checking them. Is the article now in a stable version? Catrìona (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Catrìona: Ah, of course, yeah I'm all done—Just that extradition, appeal stuff: I found an English-language Slovak source. Would that be as reliable as a Slovak-language one, you think? ——SerialNumber54129 20:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comment

I would suggest that the GA process above was flawed considering the inclusion of at least one highly inaccurate statement "waging a campaign against the British government" used in the article. Whilst I amended it last week, the fact the sentence was mentioned above for a different reason and the obvious error what the armed campaign was for and targeting, shows a seriously lack of understanding on the background to the whole issue. It falls foul of accuracy, neutrality and original research, and I can only wonder what other similar inaccuracies are within this article. Definitely not a GA on those grounds. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabuska: I believe the issue that you pointed out has been fixed. If you find other issues significant enough to cause the article to fail the GA criteria, you could always try Good Article Reassessment. Catrìona (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]