Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv/archive3

Tel Aviv

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article has now failed three FAC's and needs feedback as to what to improve. As part of the peer review, I will contact all people who placed comments at the articles FAC nominations.

Thanks, Flymeoutofhere (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern was that portions of the article had less-than-stellar prose, per my previous comments at FAC. While I agree with some of the RS concerns raised during FAC, I feel that some of the criticism leveled at the article's sourcing was unfair, particularly the assertion that a "travel article in the Times is not sufficiently reliable" and that the article should instead rely on (neutral) academic research. Truth is, global newspapers such as the Times are often better fact-checked than many academic articles, and usually more neutral.

Overall, I feel that the article is close to meeting FA criteria. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who made the above-mentioned comment, so I'd like to explain it a little bit. I said that in reference to the claim that Tel Aviv has the most Bauhaus buildings in the world. I don't believe that the fact-checking involved in the Times' article involved researching the history of Bauhaus, determining which cities had large concentrations of Bauhaus architecture, quantifying that information, and determining that Tel Aviv has more Bauhaus buildings than any other city. I feel that in order to make that kind of claim and have it be adequately sourced, you would need to do that. I think it's far more likely that the Times is repeating a claim that is either widely considered to be true or found in a source they feel is reliable. Hopefully someone did do that research, and that's where the claim comes from; that should be found and used as the source. TomTheHand (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, thanks for the comment. However, articles appearing in the Times are generally recognised on Wikipedia as reliably sourced. If you wish to dispute a statement appearing in the Times then the proof of burden falls upon you to produce equally reliable sources to refute the Times' claim. Gut feel and belief don't substitute for reliable sourcing. Nor can you dismiss the article by saying that only academic sources are allowable -- see WP:RS for details.

That said, instinct can be correct, and any publication, including the Times, can be wrong on occasion. Perhaps you can follow up on your hunch and fact check which city has the most Bauhaus buildings in the world. I'm kinda curious now. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty familiar with WP:RS, as well as WP:V; thanks. Specifically, I'm also familiar with things like "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context," as well as "exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources," both from WP:V. In this particular context, we have an exceptional claim, backed up by a passing reference in a light travel article. Again, if it were likely that the Times had done extensive research and fact-checking into the Bauhaus movement and quantified the number of Bauhaus buildings in each city, thereby determining which has the most, I would consider it reliable; however, in this particular context they are not a reliable source for such a claim. They are likely parroting the claim of another source, and we should be citing that, assuming it's reliable. It'd be like me using this article and editing RFS Moskva to say that she's a battleship, or this article to say ARA General Belgrano was a battlecruiser, because the Times says so and they're a reliable source. TomTheHand (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stretch to classify this as an exceptional claim, and it's also a stretch to categorically dismiss it as an unreliable source. All the same, all editors involved with the article may wish to add additional sourcing. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what does this mean for the article? Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ive changed it to 'is claimed to have the'. Does this solve the issue? Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually reviewed this at FAC, so my comments are there. The one issue with the terrorism section was actually resolved, so I have no further issues with the article in relation to the FA criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that this article is FAC-worthy and that the complaints raised about the article are just nitpicking and that they aren't important enough to hurt its FAC nomination. I would, however, like to see some sections expanded. Some of my very few issues with this article that could be addressed:

The climate section could be expanded, with record high and low temps, general precipitation patterns, occurrence of severe weather, etc. It's not extremely important, however.

I've added a little here although info from reliable sources is hard to come by. As you say, its not that important.

The gallery in the architecture section. This alone isn't enough to derail my vote; however, galleries are frowned-upon, even by me.

I've reduced the size of the gallery but feel that in this case it is important to show the variety of architecture in the city which isnt otherwise going to be seen so visibly. As they say - "A picture says a thousand words."

For a city at the heart of a region riddled with so much religious controversy, the religion section is pretty short.

Again, Ive added to this although probably not enough. Ive found it very hard to find info here. If you can tell me anything else specific to add of course I will. Im keeping an eye open for stuff to add though.

The sports section is kind of listy.

Im putting the article in for a copyedit so hopefully this should clear this up. I dont know how to really do it otherwise.

The "list of mayors" should be spun off into a table.

Done

The education section could probably be expanded some.

Ive added a little here, but again, info is hard to come by.

Finally, the media section could use another paragraph. There's little on radio stations and nothing on television stations based in the city.

Because Israel is such a small country, nobody is really sure whether there is much to add here. The city doesnt have its own TV stations for example, at least nothing noteworthy.

So basically, some sections could use expansion. The biggest issues I think are the shortness of the religion and media sections and the "list of mayors", which is kind of distracting and unprofessional-looking for such a well-written and sourced article. bob rulz (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully Ive addressed these issues satisfactorally. Im going to now nominate the article for a copyedit because I think it might take some time to happen but in the meantime, I'll be happy to continue working with you on improvements. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]