Talk:Kidnapping of Arbel Yehoud

If the article is a biography of a person, it should be renamed to Arbel Yehoud. If the article is about an event, then some of the headings should be changed — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 12:31, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

A living person who is primarily notable as a victim of crime is probably not notable enough, as a person, to write a full and well-rounded biography, because of the limited publicly available information about their life. The four sentences in the section headed Biography strongly suggests that this is the case. By naming the article the way they have, the creators of this article has chosen to write about the kidnapping, rather than write a pseudo-biography that would only place undue weight on the kidnapping and its aftermath. I concur with that approach and see nothing wrong with the present headings in the article. A section containing biographical material about the victim is certainly consistent with other similar articles, but it should not be confused with being a biography. Perhaps, in the future, a full biography might be justified, should this person go on to exploit her post-kidnapping celebrity. Alternatively, if she doesn't, she may fade into the historical background and return to being a private individual. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Wisenerd (talk · contribs) 11:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

More information Rate, Attribute ...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose does not pass this criteria. It reads as chronological list rather than encyclopedic style. This is especially pertinent to the post-release section, which is written with similar sentence structure (On X date, subject X) rather than in a prosaic style of a general GA. The guidelines toward GA state that articles should not contain short choppy sentences. Another concern for me is that this article does not have any context towards the perpetrators nor the overall conflict. If I were to accept this article, it would be under Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare. Initially reading this article it reads more like WP:VICTIM, and as a crime article most articles in Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society have background on the perpetrator and motives.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The biggest hurdle for this article reaching GA status is the lead section. It is exceptionally short and does not adequately pass MOS:LEADELEMENTS. I will also flag MOS:RELTIME here, as the use of "recently," "early on," "towards the end" does not meet GA standards. There is also the presence of MOS:WEASEL such as "many news outlets" and "significant".
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	completely meets standards,
	2b. 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).	The claim that Yehoud and Cunio maintained 'a correspondence through intermediaries' during captivity should be spot-checked carefully. Please confirm that the cited source explicitly describes this correspondence in these terms, and perhaps do an inline citation. Clarify who the intermediaries were if the source supports this. 'Intermediaries' are unspecified which creates a prose vagueness issue under 1a.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Mostly meets WP:NOR, however I will flag "this event was considered by many news outlets to be the first significant crisis of the ceasefire" as borderline. This statement creates WP:SYNTH issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	meets standard
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There is not enough context on the distinction between her being held by the PIJ versus the other hostages presumably held by Hamas. Add in a clarification of what that means. Additionally, there are large gaps in her post-release updates. This includes her post-release psychological and physical recovery as well as clarification on the purpose of the crowdfunding campaign.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	article clears this standard
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	mostly yes, however I will flag "marched" as a MOS:WEASEL as it could be replaced with more neutral language. You also mention military raids and a ceasefire, but there's not much information given about the Gaza war entirely. The Haaretz source (which is a summary of a Channel 13 interview that you could just cite directly instead) mentions "She also spoke about how frightened she was when Israel bombed Gaza." The most detail you offer about her captivity is "During the 2024 Rafah hostage raid, Yehoud, who was held in an area close to the raid, was held at gunpoint by her captors.[13] Yehoud reported that when relatives of her captors were wounded by the Israeli military, she was severely beaten and placed in solitary confinement for several days.[19] Towards the end of Yehoud's captivity, she became aware of the magnitude of hostage crisis after her captors permitted her to watch Al Jazeera." Another place where you could offer more WP:NPOV is her release. You mention As a result, Israel delayed the release of 110 Palestinian detainees until guarantees were made that such a release ceremony would not be held again. Where is the context about how Israel released such detainees? What was the agreement beforehand about Yehoud's release (which would probably note that the Israeli state agreed to let Palestinians return to the north of Gaza in exchange for her release per source, You do mention this slightly in Israel postponed allowing Palestinians to return north through the Netzarim Corridor.[3] However, it does not suffice for full context and understanding.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Per feedback, this does meet general stability
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Needs second opinion before I can comfortably approve. Borderline overall.

Close

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kidnapping of Arbel Yehoud/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi @ EaglesFan37, here's a place to discuss how to improve the article to potentially meet GA status. I've added some more concerns to the table.Wisenerd (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

So to answer your questions

@Wisenerd Since she was abducted on October 7th, I felt that it would likely fall under Warfare.

I likely can expand in more detail about her captivity/conditions, but I was worried that expanding further could potentially put me at risk of WP:NPOV or possibly plagiarism if I'm not sure how to word in neutrally.

The agreement beforehand was for the three Israeli hostages released, Israel would released 110 Palestinian detainees/prisoners. Israel delayed that release until meditators guaranteed that the hostages would be released in a manner that would not endanger them (I can expand upon this is article).

I can add more context about the Netzarim Corridor. EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

If you aren't sure if you could write it neutrally, you could always reach out to active folks in relevant wikiprojects would be able to do it. This is a crowdsourcing platform, it does not all need to be written by you. Wisenerd (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Per the feedback , I'll put this review on hold for one week and then check back next week to see f satisfactory changes have been made. cheers. Wisenerd (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wisenerd I'll try to have improvements done by then. EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @EaglesFan37, it has been one week, and unfortunately I do not see the satisfactory changes made for this to be a good article. I'll give you 24 more hours and then I'll put in WP:GANI#FAIL. I will encourage you to renominate when all these issues have been addressed. Wisenerd (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wisenerd To be honest, some of the rubric has not been updated for a while (the lead is not too short anymore, for instance and some changes have been made (although I know that more are needed). EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I am not updating the rubric after my initial review, however you can always ping me here and I will let you know if you are unsure whether the criteria has been met. Lead is good now, but still missing much context and post-release section is inadequate. Wisenerd (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wisenerd I'm working on post-release section at the moment. EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wisenerd I tried to address the prose in the post-release section. Is it suitable now? EaglesFan37 (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

It still feels like a list of events, which I'm not sure how they lend to encyclopedic value in a warfare article. For example, the relatively obscure award she won may be filler. Wisenerd (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wisenerd I know that there was another user in the good article mentorship, but I don't want to ping them who offered feedback once the review progressed, but I'm not sure if that's necessary or not now. EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wisenerd The last message got botched horribly, so rewriting it here: I know that there was another user from the good article mentorship who offered feedback once the review progressed. I was wondering if they could take a look as well, but I don't want to ping them if it's not necessary and/or unwanted. EaglesFan37 (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Your choice Wisenerd (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@User:It is a wonderful world Would you be able to double check this GA review? EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

GAs of now, based on the lack of context, I don't think this is GA warfare article. If @It is a wonderful world concurs, then I will fail it for now. However, with context it would be in very good shape for another GA nomination. Wisenerd (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @EaglesFan37 and @Wisenerd, thanks for pinging me. I took a more in-depth look at the middle two paragraphs of the "Post-release activities" section to check the extent of these issues.

I made some copyedits to make it flow better and added some context, but it still reads a little choppy. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a remedy for this. I checked every source referenced from the second paragraph, and not a single one of them contained analysis or context that could be used to make it more encyclopaedic. I think the post-release activities section, barring minor issues, is GA-worthy.

That being said, some of the prose still needs to be improved for flow. Take for example the Early Life section, which consists of 6 simple sentences all starting with "she" except the first one. EaglesFan, can you copyedit this to flow better? You can do this by connecting sentences with related information and varying the wording a bit.

These more superficial copyedits need to be made throughout the article to fix the prose issues, and then I think this is close to being a GA. I haven't really evaluated the article on the other criteria, but one thing that does jump out at me is that the post-release part of the lead should be expanded a bit.

Wisenerd, I'd hold off on failing this for now, since it seems relatively close to GA. I'm happy to help out with the rest of the review and would love to see this pass! IAWW (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@It is a wonderful world@Wisenerd

I'll try to expand the early life section and copy edit it to flow better now. EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@It is a wonderful world@Wisenerd

Where does the article stand towards meeting GA as of now? EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

On a read through, I think the prose is just about good enough for GA now. I have not evaluated the other criteria in depth, and I'll let Wisenerd carry out the rest of his review. One thing that does jump out at me is that the post-release part of the lead should be expanded a bit. IAWW (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wisenerd Your thoughts? EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Very honestly, it's borderline for me. I'm leaning yes however I will seek the review of a second editor. Wisenerd (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Wisenerd Thank you EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2026 (UTC)