Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mandate for Palestine/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2020 [1].

Mandate for Palestine

[edit]
Nominator(s): Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the sequel to Balfour Declaration, which achieved WP:FA status in 2017. The Mandate for Palestine was the document which made the Balfour Declaration a reality, inventing the state which became modern Israel and the Palestinian territories, and in an adjacent set of events it also invented the state which became modern Jordan. The article illustrates the competing political dynamics during 1917-23 which led to this outcome, and shows how the borders of these countries were negotiated from scratch. No other online resource comes close. The mandate was formally allocated by the League of Nations on 25 April 1920, so I am aiming to get this article to WP:TFA on the centenary on 25 April 2020. I am grateful that the article has undergone a thorough GA review by FunkMonk and others, and has been copyedited by Miniapolis at the GOCE. Like the Balfour Declaration article, this article has many important quotations set out in the endnotes, which serve to maintain the stability of the article in this highly contentious topic area of Israel-Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine

[edit]

I will comment here as I go along. Constantine ✍ 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am somewhat confused as to why the Balfour Declaration comes before Sykes-Picot. From 1914 we jump to 1917, and then back to 1915. A strictly chronological approach would probably be least confusing for the average reader. And perhaps an opening paragraph with the situation in Palestine should be added, giving the respective populations of Arabs and Jews (with numbers), and making a brief introduction on Zionism and nascent Arab nationalism in the Ottoman empire (brief mentions/explanations with links to the relevant articles would suffice). Constantine ✍ 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been giving this comment a lot of thought. The reason I haven't gone for strictly chronological in the background section is that all three sets of agreements were discussed and negotiated over the same period, such that chronological would mean jumping back and forth between Zionist, Arab and French discussions. I consider that more difficult to follow and digest than keeping the three counterparties separate (which mirrors the reality that during the war these discussions took place in silos). So I would like to retain the structure, but will work on some clarifying tweaks. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Then perhaps it would be a good idea to have an introductory/overview paragraph at the beginning, outlining the parties involved and their aims. I know just enough about the period not to get confused, but that certainly won't apply to the average reader. Constantine ✍ 11:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Palestine was part of the coastal exclusion" it is not immediately apparent what the "coastal exclusion" was. This should be made clearer, i.e, that the "portions of Syria" lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo" were coastal (with reference to the map). Constantine ✍ 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " led by Emir Faisal," mention that he was Hussein's son, thus linking the "Hashemites" to the Sherifate of Mecca mentioned above.
Fixed, with explanation of Hashemite moved earlier in the article Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The Faisal–Weizmann Agreement was signed on 3 January 1919, " briefly mention what this agreement was, or at least that it was signed by Faisal and a WZO representative (perhaps introduce Weizmann here instead of the next paragraph).
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look out for inconsistent capitalization and endash for "Sykes–Picot Agreement"
Fixed both Onceinawhile (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British Foreign Minister Curzon ultimately decided" link Curzon here, and look out for inconsistent mention of him; I suggest "Lord Curzon" at the first reference and simply "Curzon" after, or "Lord Curzon" throughout.
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the end of September 1920, Curzon instructed Vansittart" what was Vansittart's capacity?
Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and autonomous Transjordan under the rule of the Hashemite family from the Kingdom of Hejaz" the links here are a bit WP:EASTEREGGy. Perhaps amend the first to include the entirety of "autonomous Transjordan", or better yet, "an autonomous Emirate of Transjordan", and somehow introduce the Sharifian Solution in the main text, since using it to pipe "Hashemite" doesn't make much sense.
Fixed, with explanation of Sharifian Solution Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " diplomats from the League of Nations": move the link up to "were supervised by a third party: the League of Nations.".
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Treaty of Sèvres was about to be re-negotiated" link the treaty
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added links throughout the footnotes Onceinawhile (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stanley Baldwin, replacing Bonar Law, set up a cabinet subcommittee" link both and explain their role/capacity
Done. I removed Bonar Law as doesn’t need mentioning Onceinawhile (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quigley noted that", "As Huneidi noted," who/what are they?
Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept of a "Class A mandate" is introduced in the article in the very first sentence, but is never properly explained, and completely left unmentioned in the body of the text until quite late.
I have removed it from the lede, as it is unnecessary jargon. I have added a more fulsome explanation in the League of Nations mandates section Onceinawhile (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the Fascists gaining power in Italy, Mussolini delayed the mandates' implementation." link March on Rome, add date, and explain that the Fascist leader Mussolini was the new Italian Prime Minister.
Done, good suggestion. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 23 August 1923, the Turkish assembly in Ankara ratified the Treaty of Lausanne by 215 of 235 votes." the significance of this is not immediately apparent here, and it is already better covered, in terms of context, in the following "Turkey" section. Recommend removing this and amend "The dispute between France and Italy was resolved by the Turkish ratification" by adding "... of the Treaty of Lausanne (see below)" or analogous.
  • "When memorandum to the Council of the League of Nations was submitted" -> "When the memorandum was submitted to the Council of the League of Nations"
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because it required the agreement of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk." that is entirely incorrect, the treaty required no assent by Kemal. There was a quasi-civil war between the Ottoman government and Kemal's nationalist movement, at the same time as the latter's fight with the Allied powers (France, Greece, Britain). Just leave it at the fact that the treaty was not ratified, and that following the victory of Kemal's Turkish National Movement in the Turkish War of Independence, the treaty was revised at Lausanne.
  • "of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement" link these terms
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Negev region was added to Palestine" do we know why?
Explanation added Onceinawhile (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. The article is well-written, well-referenced, and very informative, and I don't see any major obstacles to it getting the FA star. I will definitely need to re-read it a couple of times with a clearer head though. Constantine ✍ 17:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: I've gone through the article again, and I like the changes. Apart from the two Turkey-related suggestions above, my main outstanding issue is the beginning of the 'Background' section, where I do strongly recommend an introductory section about Palestine in 1914 and the various players regarding it. Also, on the section titles 'Commitment to...' it should be clarified who made this commitment: the POV adopted here is that of the British government, so it should be mentioned (i.e., "British commitment to...") and it should be explained beforehand (in the intro section) exactly why we are dealing with the British perspective first and foremost. As someone somewhat familiar with the subject, I understand the rationale, but we cannot assume such knowledge for the average reader. I would also recommend adding an explanation of the colors to the legends of your maps, the {{Legend}} template should be useful here. Constantine ✍ 14:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up
I have scaled up a number of the images
  • File:1918_British_Government_Map_illustrating_Territorial_Negotiations_between_H.M.G._and_King_Hussein.png is of quite poor quality
You are quite right, and you rightly made the same comment at the Balfour Declaration FAC. As I said then, unfortunately there is no better quality version available anywhere outside the UK Government Archives. It is the only known government map illustrating the 1915 agreement, so is highly notable.
  • File:The_high_commissioner's_first_visit_to_Transjordan,_in_Es-Salt..jpg: when/where was this first published?
I have added a better tag for this one, PD-Matson. The LOC is explicit that this image, and a few thousand others, have no known restrictions.
  • File:Cair_Conference_12_March_memo_regarding_Transjordan.jpg: the UKGov tag is sufficient, life+70 is not needed. Same with File:British_Government_memorandum_regarding_Article_25_of_the_Palestine_Mandate_with_respect_to_Transjordan,_25_March_1921.jpg
Removed as suggested.
  • File:Italy_Holds_Up_Class_A_Mandates;_League_Council_Has_Failed_to_Meet_Her_Views_Regarding_Palestine_and_Syria_-_July_20,_1922.jpg: who is the author? Same with File:Zionist_Rejoicings._British_Mandate_For_Palestine_Welcomed,_The_Times,_Monday,_Apr_26,_1920.png
Both of these are unknown authors. The same goes for File:Syrians Present Grievances to League (of Nations, 1921).jpg. In the US (for the two NYT articles), they fall under the Work for hire designation, so were out of copyright after 95 years. In the UK (for The Times) “ If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created”[2]
Suggest in both cases then not using the life+70 tag given that that's not the rule being applied. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:British_Proposal_for_the_Southern_Boundary_of_Palestine,_1919_Paris_Peace_Conference.png: where was this first published?
Certainly prior to 1963 (I have clarified on the commons page), so UK Crown Copyright (which applies worldwide) has expired.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: thank you for the above comments, which I have now addressed. Are there any other images which you think should be scaled up? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say both the first and the last map. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you – this has been done. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Display name 99

[edit]
done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • Link and define Zionism and add a sentence or two about the Zionist movement prior to the Balfour Declaration. Right now I don't feel like the background goes back far enough. Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the French got modern-day Syria and Lebanon as a result of Sykes-Picot, didn't they? Why do you only discuss what the British received and fail to mention that? Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second to last paragraph of this section, you mention the protectorate system. I'm guessing that this is what existed under the Ottoman Empire. Can you explain what it was?
More to follow. Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment to Britain Palestine

Addition of Transjordan

Drafting

  • "The February 1919 Zionist Proposal to the Peace Conference was not discussed at the time, since the Allies' discussions were focused elsewhere." I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to say where. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little bit confused now. I see a draft made in December 1919 is mentioned but I can't find anywhere what the provisions were. It's also unclear to me why there had to be so many drafts. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The inclusion of Article 25 was approved by Curzon on 31 March 1921, and the revised final draft of the mandate was forwarded to the League of Nations on 22 July 1922." This comes off poorly to me unless we first explain what Article 25 was. I feel that we should explain the circumstances that led to the article, say what was in the article, and then say when it was approved. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a number of questions specifically about the sub-section "1921–22: Palestinian Arab attempted involvement:"

Oppose-I'm sorry but I do not think that this is FA quality right now. It is clear to me from my comments and what was identified by Sarastro1 that the article contains plenty of good information but at times is convoluted and ambiguous. In addition, my comments have been posted for nearly 10 days and only one of them has been addressed with no explanation for the inaction. I agree with Sarastro1 that the article would benefit from a copyedit by an unvinvolved editor, especially one who is an expert in the topic, which I admit that I am not. I recommend peer review as a possible solution. Display name 99 (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: thanks very much for your comments here, particularly the thoroughness of your assessment. I was waiting for you to finish working your way through before addressing them. The article has had a thorough GOCE copy edit, and the GA review was very detailed by multiple users. Your comments are very constructive and I will work through them. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

[edit]

This is a substantial article on a complex and difficult topic. As such, the nominator deserves congratulations. The down side is that reviewers can be a little reluctant to wade in, especially as there are over 8,000 words (which I have absolutely no doubt are necessary). I've made a start, and it looks good overall. I've checked a couple of sources, which looked ok to me, but at some point I may do one or two further checks. From a first look, I do wonder if this would benefit from a copy-edit from an uninvolved editor; there are a few parts that are difficult to understand and other parts where the prose might benefit from a massage. Content-wise, it looks good so far. I'm not an expert on this at all, and most of what I know comes from studying this in history for GCSE a loooooong time ago. So overall, maybe this needs a touch more work, but I have no major concerns so far. Here's what I've found over the last day or two, as far as the start of the "Addition of Transjordan" section. Sarastro (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ”envisaging the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship”: Fused participle. Maybe “…economic union; Jerusalem would be transferred…”
Changed to "on 29 November 1947; this envisaged the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union, and with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship." Onceinawhile (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "added to the mandate following a March 1921 conference”: A bit of an easter egg here; maybe make it “following the Cairo Conference in March 1921”?
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”By late 1917, in the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration, the wider war had reached a stalemate with two of Britain's allies not fully engaged; the United States had yet to suffer a casualty, and the Russians were in the midst of the October revolution.”: I wonder if this could be split into two sentences after “stalemate”?
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The term "national home" had no precedent in international law,[9] and was intentionally vague about whether a Jewish state was contemplated.[9]”: Why do we have the same reference twice in the same sentence? Once at the end would seem to be enough. Also, I’m not too sure why we are using “p 82 ff” when as far as I can see, everything is referenced on p 82 (and possibly 83, so maybe pp 82-83 would suffice?). A similar issue with reference 20 in the next section (the same citation twice in a sentence). Neither of these is a particular issue, I’m just curious about the reason.
"ff" replaced by 82-83 as suggested. I have kept the same reference twice in those two sentences, on the basis that each separate clause represents an important point. We are being crystal clear that both clauses within the sentence are explicitly sourced. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The primary negotiations leading to the agreement occurred between 23 November 1915 and 3 January 1916, on which date the British and French diplomats Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot initialled an agreed memorandum”: Presumably the latter date? Perhaps this should be specified?
Specified as suggested Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 24 is to “Eugene Rogan, The Fall of the Ottomans, p.286” but this is not in the bibliography.
Added Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”His delegation made two initial statements to the peace conference”: As we don’t call it Faisal’s delegation in the previous sentence, and the subject of the previous sentence is the delegation itself, I think this may be better as “The delegation made…”
Amended as suggested Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The Hashemites had fought with the British…”: Specify during the war?
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although France required the continuation of its religious protectorate in Palestine, Italy and Great Britain opposed it. France lost the religious protectorate but, thanks to the Holy See, continued to enjoy liturgical honors in Mandatory Palestine until 1924 (when the honours were abolished).” A bit to sort here. We would be better without close repetition of “religious protectorate” and “honours” (especially as we spell it two ways in the same sentence). Also, what are liturgical honours? This is their only mention in the article. We need to at least link “Holy See” and what does the Holy See have to do with anything?
  • ”As Weizmann reported to his WZO colleagues in London in May 1920,[b] the boundaries of the mandated territories were unspecified at San Remo and would "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" at a later stage.” This seems a bit of an afterthought as the rest of the paragraph is not about this. Also, “As Weizmann reported…” appears to be a little bit of editorialising using Wikipedia’s voice. It may be more neutral to simply say “Weizmann reported…”
  • ”British forces retreated in spring 1918 from Transjordan after their first and second attacks on the territory”: Why did they retreat? I’m a little lost here, and can’t quite tell what is going on.
  • ”Britain and France did agree on the East border of Palestine being the Jordan river as laid out in the Sykes–Picot Agreement”: Perhaps better as “Britain and France agreed that the East border of Palestine would be the Jordan river as laid out in the Sykes–Picot Agreement”, but why are we capitalising East?
Fixed and suggested, and replaced East with eastern. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Regarding Faisal's Arab Kingdom of Syria, the French removed Hashim al-Atassi's newly-proclaimed nationalist government and expelled King Faisal from Syria after the 23 July 1920 Battle of Maysalun.” This is the first we have mentioned of any kingdom of Faisal’s. I’m a little confused where this comes from, and how Faisal acquired a kingdom when the last we read of him, he was the head of a delegation. There is probably a simple explanation and I’m possible being a little thick, but I think we could make this more transparent.
  • Comma use: I'm not totally sure we are being consistent in how we are using commas at the start of sentences:
    • ”Immediately following their declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, the British War Cabinet began” (comma)
    • ”By late 1917, in the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration,” (comma)
    • ”Between July 1915 and March 1916 a series of ten letters” (no comma)
    • ”In anticipation of the Peace Conference, the British…” (comma)
The rule I have applied is to use a comma after an introductory dependent clause. I didn't have it in the 1915-16 sentence only because that sentence has quite a lot of breaks already. I have added it back, but am now thinking the sentence should be restructured. I'd be grateful if you have any ideas here. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from T8612

[edit]
  • Why did you make such long footnotes? and two series of notes? I feel that the readability of the article is really impacted by this formatting (think about those reading it on mobile!). I would much prefer seeing the content of these notes in the text body; the article is not that long for such a complex topic (55k characters), and some sections are quite small ("Turkey", "Legality" have only one paragraph). Imo there is no need to add such long verbatim quotes from primary and especially secondary sources. The former can be interesting when really significant (but not that many), not the latter (unless from a very influential academic or book). All the info in the notes starting by "Biger wrote" etc. should be synthesised and added in the text body. I don't think it is FA standard right now, although you have made a great job at collecting all the material. Now you just have to make it more encyclopedic. T8612 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @T8612: thank you for reviewing the article. You raise an important topic. I last discussed it in detail with the late great Brian Boulton in this thread from the first FAC review of the Balfour Declaration article. I explained the following, which is equally applicable to this article: "The subject of this article is the origin of perhaps the most controversial and hotly debated of all modern conflicts. I have edited in the Israel Palestine area for some time, and have learned that quotes in footnotes are a must in order to avoid edit wars on controversial topics. As it says at WP:IPCOLL, every topic is described differently by both sides. Israelis, Palestinians and their respective supporters come to read this article all the time - when they see something that doesn't fit the narrative they thought they knew, let's just say that they do not bother to go and check the source book out of the library before editing." The rest of the thread goes on to provide more detail.
It has proven to work; both Balfour Declaration and this article went from edit warring battlegrounds to completely stable articles after the addition of these detailed footnotes.
Are there any footnotes in particular which stand out to you? Whilst I feel strongly about the overall concept, I am open to cutting them down further wherever possible. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I remember having read the Balfour declaration article and being similarly bothered. Would it be possible to transcribe important speeches and newspapers articles on Wikisource? This way they would be easily accessible without making the article overwhelming with quotes/notes everywhere. On edit wars, I thought every article on Palestine had an extensive protection. Isn't it enough?

I'm going to try rewriting a section to show you how I would have written it (the one entitled "British Parliament"):

British public and government opinion became increasingly opposed to state support for Zionism. Even Sykes had begun to change his views after a last trip to Palestine in late 1918, as he considered the situation could become dangerous.[ref to Leslie's book] Following a visit to Palestine in February 1922, the Conservative media mogul Viscount Northcliffe—who notably owned the Times and The Daily Mail—launched a campaign in the press against Zionism, fearing that it would upset Muslims in India. On 15 February, he published from Cairo a statement suggesting Palestine risked becoming a second Ireland.[Defries ref] Concerned by his fading support in Parliament, Churchill telegraphed Samuel—who had begun his role as High Commissioner for Palestine 18 months earlier—asking for cuts in his expenditure, so he hoped he could dodge the critics on the cost of supporting Zionism for the British taxpayer.[ref to Huneidi] This policy initially failed as the House of Lords rejected a Palestine Mandate incorporating the Balfour Declaration by 60 votes to 25 after the June 1922 issuance of the Churchill White Paper, following a motion proposed by Lord Islington.[refs to Huneidi and Hansard] The Lords' vote was only symbolic though, since it was subsequently overruled by a vote in the House of Commons thanks to skilful political manoeuvring from Chruchill. He avoided showing his support to Zionism, focusing instead on imperial and strategic considerations, especially the need for Britain to remain in the area to control the Suez Canal.[refs to Hansard and Mathew].

There is more info and less notes. The role of Northcliffe is important, but with your current formatting, you put the info in a quote that leads to a note; that's not ideal and easy to follow. T8612 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @T8612: thank you for this. I like many of the copy edits in there. To your specific questions: (1) for the speeches and newspaper articles to go on Wikisource, I would need the full piece – unfortunately more often than not I just have the specific excerpts that are quoted by scholars of this topic. Where I do have the complete source material I have frequently added it to Wikisource, or sometimes as a pdf to Wikicommons; I will have a look through to see if I can add more. (2) On edit wars, this is not about IPs, but about avoiding edit wars between experienced editors who feel very strongly about this topic area and are willing to fight over the slightest nuance without double checking the underlying sources. For example, statements in your draft such as Sykes changed his mind "as he considered the situation could become dangerous" and Northcliffe launched his campaign because he "fear[ed] that it would upset Muslims in India" would attract amendments by editors who feel that the summary was not a full reflection. (3) Footnotes are also useful to provide additional detail which would otherwise distort the flow of the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

This nom appears to have stalled and we're nowhere near consensus to promote, so I'm gong to archive it. As well as addressing Sarastro's unresolved comments, I'd suggest working with the reviewers, if they're willing, outside of FAC to improve the article prior to another nomination after the usual two-week waiting period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mandate_for_Palestine/archive1&oldid=943448896"