Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

I think this one is an easy pick. It is a very lengthy and professional article about an important subject. --Dmcdevit 08:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Its been over three years and the article has settled down substantially. It is unquestionably well written, informative and unbiased, so I give my support. CGorman 20:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: The title and first sentence use nonstandard punctuation. The standard when writing dates in the format of "month day, year" is to set the year off with two commas, or a comma in front and other appropriate punctuation following. Sources include the style guides of The Associated Press and The New York Times, "Working With Words: A Handbook for Media Writers and Editors", Webster's New World College Dictionary, and many more. Further, Wikipedia:Manual of Style says: "If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to an alternative that is often regarded as incorrect." (For anyone who disagrees with me, note that I am not attempting to change the page now. I am only giving my view that needless nonstandard punctuation is a disqualifier for featured article status.) Maurreen 20:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't have to hand any of the sources Maurreen selectively gives but this doesn't sound right to me. I think she, and her sources, confuse "On September 11, 2001, hijackers...", where the second comma is needed, with "September 11, 2001 was a..." where it is not. Why would it be? The whole of the date is the subject of the sentence. "2001" is not an apposition (as in "My mother, Maurreen, used to say 'use two commas') nor a parenthesis. In the example we are considering the whole of the date describes "attacks" and the same considerations apply. I have to say that voting against a featured article because it doesn't use the punctuation you favour in its title is a poor reflection on you.Dr Zen 23:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Object to the objection: Many US sources use the punctuation Maurreen considers "nonstandard" (see [1]). She even forced two votes on whether to have the comma that she wants inserted inserted, and lost them both. It's ridiculous to oppose an article becoming a featured article just because you want a comma where most people don't, jguk 23:22, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Perhaps we should just move this to Attacks of September 11, 2001? Neutralitytalk 03:43, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • That works for me. There are a number of options possible that would sidestep disagreement about the comma. Maurreen 04:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Maurren, are you sure you're right about the second comma? As I mentioned to you a few weeks ago, I can't find a source that backs you up on this, and the link you gave for a Google search (at least the ones I read) don't seem to support your view. I've checked the AP, CP, Guardian and Globe&Mail style guides, and they also don't seem to support a second comma in this context (though I may have missed it). Can you provide an actual reference for this (with page number and edition, if it's a style guide you've got to hand)? I do vaguely remember that this way of writing a date used to be taught in American schools, but I'm not aware that anyone continues to use this rule, and if they do, my guess is it would now be regarded as non-standard. For example, would you write: "A Washington, D.C. man" or "A Washington, D.C., man"? Slim 23:23, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
        • Have also just checked Bill Walsh's Lapsing into a Comma (which, admittedly, is not very good) and Strunk and White. Can't find anything there either. Slim 00:04, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen, thanks for supplying these references. I'll reply to you on your Talk page, but in brief, one or two of the examples you give below are arguably different usage, and the rest are definitely different. The AP reference might fit, but it doesn't give an example. Slim 00:01, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC) Slim asked for details on the references. Here they are.

  • AP stylebook (The one I have handy at the moment is from 2002), page 166, under "months," second paragraph: "When a phrase lists only a month and a year, do not separate the year with commas. When a phrase refers to a month, day and year, set off the year with commas."
Doesn't give an example though?
  • New York Times stylebook (1999), under "dates," page 101, first paragraph: "When day, month and year are given together, use a comma after the day, and use a comma or some other punctuation after the year: "He said he left Ho Ho Kus on April 16, 1995, to return to Burkina Faso."
This is arguably a different usage.
  • Webster's New World College Dictionary, fourth edition (2001), page 1673,"comma" section: "A comma is ordinarily used: … 5. To set off the main elements in an address; a title following a person's name; and the year if the month, day, and year are given. … The letter was dated July 14, 1987, and was mailed from Paris."
This is clearly a different usage. This would be US usage whether you generally use a second comma or do not.
  • "Working with Words: A Handbook for Media Writers and Editors," by Brian S. Brooks, James L. Pinson, and Jean Gaddy Wilson (2003, published by Bedford/St. Martin's), page 164, second point under "Always Use a Comma": "Use a comma before and after the abbreviation for a state following a city, and before and after a year following a month and date: … On May 2, 2002, the two giants in the field met." Maurreen 06:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is nothing like the disputed usage.Dr Zen 06:40, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to me (Maurreen had missed a small number of genuine punctuation glitches, which I've fixed - sheeesh, seems like some can't see the wood for the trees). It's a nice article that doesn't spend too long on any one bit of it, with lots of links off it. (I should declare that I have done some work on the article some weeks ago - but it looks a lot better since I last saw it.) jguk 23:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support just to spite Maureen's vote. The title is fine. Everyking 00:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. No "sources and further reading" section. Neutralitytalk 03:44, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Huh? That title for a section is entirely ambiguous as to which resources are actually used as references and which are just there for more information for the reader. Why would you ask someone to create that ambiguity? But I agree the article needs references and citation organized in a section at the end as per the featured article criteria, especially Wikipedia:Cite sources. I'll leave my vote below for clarity. - Taxman 23:39, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, inadequate references, and they really could stand to be noted at the end in a references section too. - Taxman 03:57, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This is a wonderful article, very comprehensive. I would agree with Taxman that it would be useful to have separate "sources" and "further reading" sections, but that is not an objection. Blue 10:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. JOHN COLLISON (An Liúdramán) 13:12, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Excellent article, now that it's been copyedited, but I think the lack of references .. did the writers REALLY just know all this stuff? ... is too big an omission. It can't be too hard to fix this in time.Sfahey 22:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, because this is an excellent article and I don't want to be a pain about details, but there are several issues that should be looked at.
    • (1) It needs a references section and more inline references. There are only five inline references (as links) in the article, which isn't enough for a page this size. For example, these claims needs references: "Reportedly, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the attack's mastermind, wanted to remove at least one member -- Khalid al-Mihdhar -- from the operation, but he was overruled by Osama bin Laden" (and the sentence needs proper dashes) and "Shortly after the attack there were reported popular celebrations in some countries by people opposed to U.S. policies in the Middle East , however several of these images are suspected to have been staged" (not the correct punctuation for however, and you need a comman after attack);
    • (2) "In 2004, the U.S. government commission investigating the attacks officially concluded . . ." and "The official panel investigating the attacks reported that . . . " Why call it "the U.S. government commission" and "the official panel" rather than give it its proper name?
    • (3) It needs a copy edit, as there's some odd English e.g. "New York City lit the Empire State Building in purple and gold, in a sign of saying thank you for having the U.S. national anthem playing at the Changing of the Guard." In a sign of saying thank you? And "The great majority of Muslim political and religious leaders condemned the attacks - virtually the only significant stand-out was Saddam Hussein." Stand-out?
    • (4) The red links should be removed.
    • (5) And finally, is it appropriate to use al-Qaida instead of al-Qaeda? As it was an attack on American soil, and American usage dominates elsewhere in the article, the American transliteration of al-Qaeda should probably be used, especially as it links to the Wikipedia article on al-Qaeda, which is transliterated the American way. But that's a very small point. These are all small points, and I don't want to object on the basis of them, so this is just a request that some of these issues be resolved. I may do some of the copy editing myself if no one minds. Slim 23:48, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Just did some copy editing myself. I left al-Qaida as it is, as I don't want to be dragged over hot coals by the Brits. :-) The only remaining issue (for me) is the references section, but that's not an objection. Slim 06:57, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. The lead section is formatted into a thin column of text, with an image on the left and Template:Sep11 on the right. The image should be rt aligned with Template:Sep11 made into a footer. Some listings in the #See also section such as the 9/11 Comission Report should be incorporated into the text. --Jiang 05:41, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Object - agree with Jiang. --mav 07:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Vaoverland 08:38, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/September_11,_2001_attacks/archive1&oldid=95332336"