Talk:Desecration of Christian statues in Debel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Desecration of Christian statues in Debel has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 7, 2026. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
 | You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}
You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning {
display: none;
}
Stop: You may only use this page to create an edit request This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) |
| Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the Arab–Israeli conflict.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. |
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2026
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please specify the punishments redirected by the individuals responsible for these actions in the lead paragraph. The sentences “and the Israel Defense Forces said it was investigating” and “the IDF again said it had identified the soldier and would investigate” might mislead the reader into thinking the cases have not been investigated. Of course, if the reader reads the entire article he will learn about their punishments, and the article below already links to reliable sources about that, I’m just saying it should be clarified in the lead paragraph. Regarding the Crucifix, I propose to write “the image circulated online and the Israel Defense Forces said it was investigating. The soldier who damaged the crucifix and the one who photographed him were both removed from combat and jailed for 30 days”. Regarding the Virgin Mary statue, I suggest to write “The soldier who put the cigarette was jailed for 21 days, and the one who photographed him for 14 days.” Thanks in advance. Archaeocursor (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
GA review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Desecration of Christian statues in Debel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: 2x2x2x2x2 (talk · contribs) 15:08, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: Dragonhawk12 (talk · contribs) 04:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The Associated Press shouldn't be italicized. Also, the Associated Press is referred to by it's full name, but it's shortened version (AP) is written next to it the last time the AP is mentioned. Please either remove the (AP), or move the (AP) to it's first mention and refer to it as such for the rest of the article."Vatican News" should be italicized and wikilinkedAll issues have been fixed- Other than that, I didn't see anything else wrong with the article's grammar. I found some issues with spelling, but I fixed it myself.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Follows the manual of style for these topics.
- A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- The references are layed out correctly. Used the dead link checker and it gave me 5 "down links", but none of them are actually down.
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- Spot check here
- Just finished the spot check, but there are some things that need addressing. You can either reply here or on the spot check page. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 22:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Sources are fixed now 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC) (Dragonhawk edited position of the text here)
- All the sources look good now
- Spot check here
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
"Fadi Falfel, a priest in Debel, told Reuters that the crucifix was part of a small shrine in the garden of a family living on the edge of the village" closely paraphrases this source."The family accepted the Italian-donated replacement because it was closer in size to the original, and gave the Israel-supplied crucifix to a local church." closely paraphrases this source, especially the last part.Everything has been fixed- Everything else looks fine.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Seems to include everything that's important to the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- The article doesn't lean to one viewpoint and it talks about all viewpoints in a neutral way. All quotes are backed by a reliable source.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No edit wars here
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Image have valid fair use rationales and images have suitable captions.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- I'm putting this review on hold until all the issues are fixed above. If there is no progress in 2 weeks, I will fail this review. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 02:44, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe replying in the review isn't the best, but I think all of the issues have been addressed. The paraphrasing (2d), the well written criterion (1a), "Other than that, I didn't see anything else wrong with the article's grammar. I found some issues with spelling, but I fixed it myself." Vatican News has been wikilinked and italicised. Everything else is passing? What has not been fixed? 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- oh, sorry, I didn't realize you fixed it. I was expecting you to reply saying that you've fixed it before I put it on hold. I'll check it now Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 03:00, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- Everything has been fixed. I'll pass the article now. Congrats! Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 03:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe replying in the review isn't the best, but I think all of the issues have been addressed. The paraphrasing (2d), the well written criterion (1a), "Other than that, I didn't see anything else wrong with the article's grammar. I found some issues with spelling, but I fixed it myself." Vatican News has been wikilinked and italicised. Everything else is passing? What has not been fixed? 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- I'm putting this review on hold until all the issues are fixed above. If there is no progress in 2 weeks, I will fail this review. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 02:44, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Notes
Issues outside of the GA criteria: (Note: these don't need to be implemented for this to be a good article, but it's recommended you do)
- The nations in the list of reactions ideally should be ordered alphabetically.
Hello! I am reviewing this article for the Developing Countries WikiContest. I will review this article hopefully tomorrow. If you have any questions or I biff anything, please tell me! Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 04:27, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.