Talk:2024 Gwadar attack

Assessment as Start class

I have assessed this article as being Start class for a number of reasons, and in doing so I have also changed the answers to the B-class check list questions to "no" for the following reasons:

b1 - Referencing & citations

To be notable, events need to demonstrate some sort of lasting effect or have in-depth and ongoing coverage beyond the ordinary news cycle. This coverage should be from a diverse range of sources not only from the news media but also from analysts and academics that provide further research and analysis about the importance of these events on the broader context the event occurs within. The citations given seem to be routine news coverage about what happened, with minimal analysis or commentary about any future impacts or past background to the events at hand. Some citations have no publication date, making it difficult to assess when the original source material was written, although access dates would indicate that these were concurrent with the event being covered. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news website.

b2 - Coverage & accuracy

When did this event happen? And what actually happened? While the lead section gives a date, the purpose of the lead section is to provide a summary overview of the article. As such, the lead section is not part of the full article text, while the lead should stand alone, the rest of the article should be able to stand alone too, without relying on the lead to exist. The body of the article starts off saying that the media wing of the armed forces issued a statement about the attack, but it does not cite this statement, nor say when it was issued. Without being able to access this primary source, readers are reliant on media reports alone, and are unable to assess the accuracy of reporting by comparing the media release with news reports. Have the news media swallowed the media release whole, or is there independent coverage in addition to what the armed forces are saying? Also, I would have thought that the date and time of the attack would best be mentioned here, too.

b3 - Structure

While the body of this article is divided into sections, the section content leaves much to be desired. As already mentioned, the section about the attack starts with discussing a media release, not by saying what happened in the attack. Later in the article, the motive for the attack is mentioned in the section discussing the claim of responsibility. Where the article this motive is mentioned is what distinguishes a Wikipedia article from a news story. Wikipedia articles should answer the basic facts of who, what, when, where, and why (i.e. the "five Ws",) but should do it in a way that gives the reader an understanding of cause and effect. This means readers should have some background understanding of the reasons for the attack before the attack is discussed in the article. The claim of responsibility explains the motives for the attack but this explanation should have been mentioned first before the attack was mentioned, as part of a background section for what makes the target a target. Wikipedia should try to put the reader into thought processes of the participants by providing analysis to explain why the participants were motivated to do what they did. Since thought comes before action, so does motive before events.

b4 - Grammar & style

While news articles may be written in a news style inverted pyramid for presenting information from most important to least important in relation to a particular story. Wikipedia's summary style is aimed at presenting the most important information about the topic being covered in an article. While the two styles appear similar, they they have different objectives and may treat the same information in different ways. While news article tend to focus on what has happened, Wikipedia's focus is often on explaining why something has happened in the wider context of a larger topic. i.e. providing a bigger picture context view or where a tree fits in the forest.

b5 - Supporting materials

Support materials, such as info-boxes and images, are not part of the readable prose of an article, and while not essential they do improve the quality of an article. However, when they are used they should support and be consistent with the body text. In this article, a event info-box has been used that says this was a suicide attack and there were 2 fatalities, yet the article says nothing about suicide and mentions 10 people were killed. This is inconsistent information. The info-box does not have a break down of fatalities by opposing sides, so I assume the total number should be given. The info-box template does have the ability to break down casualties by participant groups. Possibly the wrong info-box has been used.

In its present state, the article needs clean-up because reads like a news story and the lead section contains information not in the body. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)