Good articleMishmar HaEmek has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 2, 2017Good article nomineeListed
December 8, 2017Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 22, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Hello[edit]

Hello!

The subject written in the article is a Kibbutz in Israel, it is not a person or anything, it gives information about the kibbutz to outsiders. I was asked to write short information about the kibbutz, I just don't know the best way of doing so in Wikipedia.

The Kibbutz took part in the Independence War for Israel in 1948, and I will add it tomorrow.

Please do not delete the subject.

Thank you for your article! Can you please add some references and cite some sources so others can verify and expand the content? It would also be great to get things like the coordinates of the place (Template:Coord provides a cool way to automatically link to map pages etc.). HAppy editing, Kusma (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mishmar HaEmek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 20:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I've fixed of the issues: "lands" to "land"; "60 men and women, and six children" to "60 adults and six children"; "dozens of thousands" to "tens of thousands".
I'll address the other issues when I'll be next to a computer. Most of the run-on sentences were translated from Hebrew. I'll work on that too.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't feel like you have to rush too much. I understand that you may only get to work on it on weekends so I won't close it early as long as we keep communicating. AIRcorn (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Next time I'll be home will be on 18 October. I might be able to fix some wording issues through my phone, but not major things.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

break

Aircorn would you think it is relevant that a German Jewish athlete was a member of the kibbutz for three years in the 30s, working in agriculture is notable enough for the article? Most of these notable residents were mirrored by other users from the Hebrew Wikipedia.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it was presented like that, with information putting his association to the village in context, then it is fine. AIRcorn (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


That concludes my review of the text. Thanks for your patience. I understand that you are busy so am happy for you to work on the above when you have time. I am flexible with most points, so don't feel you have to blindly accept my critique. AIRcorn (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

Per MOS:LEAD, which is part of the GA criteria (the it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections portion of "Well-written"), the lead should be two to three paragraphs long given the size of the article, and as noted above, it needs to better summarize the article and not contain any significant information not already in the body of the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn, BlueMoonset I've epxanded the lead now.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. We had a a long weekend and I was somewhere with no internet apart from what I had on my phone and have just now caught up with jobs back home. I will have a look now and hopefully we can pass this. AIRcorn (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

Looking really good. Just a few more points.

Apart from that I think we are good to go. AIRcorn (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go over these when I'll be home. I consider making a section for landmarks. There are some in the kibbutz (a museum, an historical cave, a cemetery with famous people etc.).--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aircorn I am done.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comment[edit]

Presently, we have the sentence in the article:

"In 1924 the JNF bought some 30,175 dunams from Arab villages next to Nahalal in the western part of the valley. On this land, Sarid, Ramat David, Gvat, Kfar Baruch and Mishmar HaEmek were established."

I think this gives a wrong impression: as if it was the villagers themselves who sold the land. Afaik, the land was sold by absentee landlords; eg Sarid, Gvat is on land formerly owned by the Lebanese Sursock family. This should be noted, me thinks, Huldra (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra changed to "In 1924 the JNF purchased lands owned by Christian Lebanese Sursock family near Nahalal. After this, it decided to expand south and in 1926 purchased most of the land of Abu Shusha, where Bedouins and Turkmens lived."--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bolter21: Thanks, much better. I wonder if we should link to: "List of villages sold by Sursocks and their partners to the Zionists since British occupation of Palestine, evidence to the Shaw Commission, 1930," this was part of that Nazareth sub-districts-bulk of villages, me thinks, Huldra (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Is there a policy on Israeli places to only give one form of the name? Ha-Emek and Ha'emek aren't wrong or even uncommon and should be mentioned somewhere in the article, no? — LlywelynII 10:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thechnically speaking, the correct way to write it would be Mishmar Ha'Emek, but there is really no true way to write it. Israel officialy name it "Mishmar HaEmeq", but Israel's official English translated are inconsistent and shouldn't be dependent on. The reason why the comma is dropped off in many translations is because it is difficult to pronounce the 'e sound when it follows another vowel, so instead of pronouncing it "Ha-'Emek", people pronounce it "Haemek". One thing is sure, writting it "Ha'emek" is wrong, because "Ha" is the Hebrew for "The" and is connected to its subject, so in English translations, the subject is treated as another word, although still connected to "Ha". So in conclution, it should be spelled "Mishmar Ha'Emek", but it can also be spelled "Mishmar HaEmek" per the actual pronounciation.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]


GAR[edit]

Mishmar HaEmek

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delisted This has been open long enough. I know I was the original reviewer so you can call it me revoking my pass if you want. Copyright concerns that have not been addressed after five months. AIRcorn (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opening this GAR due to issues with close paraphrasing and sourcing. See some examples in the DYK nom. Some of the issues have been fixed, but given the extent I think a GAR is warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the current copyvio tool result. AIRcorn (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bolter21: Do you have time to have a look at this? TheDragonFire (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be home next friday. Until then I am available through the phone app.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Post-delisting discussion

Aircorn, I've fixed the copyvio problems as soon as I got my computer back in 22 December 2017. The users who started this GAR have abandoned it one by one. This GAR was posted, I responded by fixing the problem, which was followed by five months of silence and now the GA status was removed... Is there still an issue here that you need to delist the article?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: well?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I delisted the article because there was no response here from you except to say that you would get around to it. I asked at multiple venues to try and get a close, but again not much happened. I am a little annoyed that you inserted copy violations in the first place, and even more annoyed that I didn't realise it. If someone else wants to overturn this close I have no issues. Maybe ask @Nikkimaria: if they are happy with the current version or ping @TheDragonFire and Fish and karate: as they have shown some interest in closing. AIRcorn (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bolter21: No one abandoned this review, in fact we were waiting for you as requested. There may have been a misunderstanding about the copyright issues at the time of Aircorn's close, but this is understandable given the lack of additional evidence presented here. Nikkimaria's comment on the DYK nomination indicates that sourcing issues remain after your 22 December 2017 edits and as such I endorse Aircorn's closure for the time being. If you have time to work on the article, please review the comments on the DYK nomination and make an new GA nomination. This whole thing is unfortunate, but please remember we're all here trying to improve the encyclopaedia. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mishmar HaEmek/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow review, real life and holidays have intervened! Resuming shortly. Ganesha811 (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun the work. I really liked your opinion about the history section. I used it as guide and rewritten a third of it. I have arranged the "prestate" section into a subsection named "establishment", which refers to all events until 1947, and then starts two other subsections solely about the security-political situation of the kibbutz, so there's the history of the kibbutz until 1948 and military history of the kibbutz until 1948. I'll address more issues later. For you I advise to re-read the "establishment" section because I've changed the wording there without changing the content or touching the sources. Just see whether it makes sense to an English reader. As for the population statistics, the history sections say what sources say, while the demographics only refers to censuses. Still a problem?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually all of the history up until 1948 was edited.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bolter21, thanks for your responses and edits! They look good, overall. I'll continue with the review. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bolter21 - the article is much improved but there are a number of grammatical issues and other peculiarities of language. I understand this is tough as a non-native English speaker so I'd recommend requesting a copyedit by the WP:GUILD. The GA review can be put on hold until that is complete. Some sourcing issues also need to be addressed - see Table item 2a. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest continueing the review and I'll do as much as I can to fix the English and as soon as most issues will be solved and only a copy edit will be required, then we would put the review on halt until it will be done by proffessionals. It is not wise to copyedit the article now, becuause possibly there is more content to be added (such as, for example, the landscape around the kibbutz, climate, the forest, etc.) and then we will need another copy edit, which will just take more time.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bolter21, if the article is going to undergo substantial expansion it's probably not the right time for a GA review to be ongoing - GA reviews require the article to be stable to be assessed correctly. I'm happy to continue the review and let you fix issues but putting it on hold doesn't mean giving up on it, it's just a mechanism to pause until the article is in a place you're happy with it and then I can return to re-assess. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know last time I've made a GA review the article was expanded with suggestions from the reviewers.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's make it easy. If you have any more suggestions on what you think is missing in the article or any non-grammatical issues, list them, I'll address them and then submit the article to the Guild. When they will finish we'll resume the review. How's that?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bolter21, sounds good. For now the issues that I see are the ones listed below, especially under 1a (prose) and 2a (sourcing). Ganesha811 (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copy. Then I'll begin working. Review is on halt.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha811, a review was made by the GOCE and I have no mor sources to add right now so we can resume the review. Bolter21--141.226.92.178 (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I'll take another look through soon. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well? Ganesha811--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bolter21, my apologies, this simply slipped my mind with some other stuff going on. I'll take a look in the next couple days. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing this tonight. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so having taken another look, a few things stand out:
  • Overall, the article is much improved. Great work!
  • It still feels uneven. The history section is badly weighted towards events from 1926-1948 - I understand they were exciting times in the region's history, but either an increase in summarization for that period or an expansion of the 1950-present section would be appropriate.
  • Some sentences seem to have been thrown in willy-nilly - for instance the last sentence in the History about the 110 new housing units. When did the project start? Is it ongoing? Why is this relevant to the Wiki page?
  • There are some grammatical issues, though I can go through and fix those myself later.
Overall, keep working on this - we're nearly there! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am going to search through 20th century newspapers to find some interesting stories about Mishmar HaEmek post independence. One thing I wanted to do in the past and didn't was to cover the political affiliation of the residents who are clearly identified with the Israeli left. Maybe now its the time to dig in, shouldn't be that difficult. I'll also check the these willy-nilly-thrown sentences I saw you noted. Quick note, the residential expansion is relevent becuase now the kibbutz has about 1,200 residents, and 110 housing units can increase the population of the kibbutz by more than 20% which is fairly large. Unfortunately there aren't many written sources about it and I am struggling to state the obvious without breaking the rules of WP:OR.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  • In general, the prose is quite good, but the History section needs organization - some sentences seem placed at random or contain information unrelated to the main thrust of the paragraph. For example, this paragraph: "In 1947, Mishmar HaEmek had a population.... filmed here" does not work well within the context of the paragraphs before - focus on military history obscures this cultural history. The section "after the establishment of israel" is better.
  • Mostly addressed.
  • The "prestate history" header really needs to be changed - neither neutral nor clear in meaning to a non-Israeli reader.
  • Addressed.
  • Statistics about population are found both in the History section and in the Demographics. Probably better confined to Demographics. Some duplication at present.
  • Partially addressed.
  • Why is HaShomer HaTzair capitalized the first time it is used but given as "Hashomer Hatzair" the second time? Is it a Hebrew thing or just inconsistent?
  • It might be worth mentioning the archaeological site in the lead.
  • "now" instead of "know" in 'Establishment, 3rd paragraph
  • Second to last sentence of that 3rd paragraph is grammatically incorrect and seems oddly placed - rephrase - maybe "At the time it was the only Jewish settlement in this part of the valley", if that is indeed the intended meaning.
  • Remove "here" in 3rd-to-last paragraph of 'Establishment' and in the subsequent paragraph - replace with 'at Mishmar HaEmek' or some other phrasing.
  • in 'Great Arab Revolt...' "by nearby Arab villagers" instead of 'by the nearby Arabs villagers'. Separate sentence for the command, right now it's a run-on.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Pass. Complies with manual of style, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • The claim in 'Demographics' that the residents are secular Jews does not seem strongly-enough supported by the linked source, which is not necessarily reliable. The statement as written implies that all current residents are secular, which seems like a strong claim.
  • The second paragraph in 'Archaeology' is uncited - is the material coming from previously cited references? More specific citations would be helpful - we shouldn't have a full paragraph bereft of references.
  • What is the source for "described by a member as 'a crime greater than murder'" in 'Great Arab Revolt'?
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).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • Pass. No issues detected.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • The geography section seems sparse - what is the landscape like around the kibbutz? What about climate? As part of a biosphere reserve there is also material that could be added related to that.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Pass. Good focus, not overdetailed.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • I'm not sure that "Prestate" history is a NPOV way of describing history before 1948, as it implies there was no state in the region. Change heading to something more neutral, maybe talking about Mandatory Palestine or similar
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Pass. No issues, most work done months ago, no edit warring.
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.
  • No issues - pass.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • No issues - pass.
7. Overall assessment.

Status query

Bolter21, Ganesha811, what is the status of this nomination/review? The last post here was nearly six weeks ago, the last edit to the article was three days after that, which is a long time since with nothing happening. Are there plans to get back to this soon? This was nominated over a year ago, and took nearly ten months to get a review going, so there's naturally going to be more leeway, but it's important to get things moving. (I did check, and it appears that no request has yet been made to the Guild of Copy Editors, but if there's significant additional work to be done with the content, it makes sense to hold off on the copyedit.) Thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, my understanding is that the nomination is on hold until copyedits and other needed changes can be made. I agree it has been a while... Bolter21, when will you have time to work on this article? Let's figure out what our next steps should be. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a rough couple of months and I struggle to find time for Wikipedia. I have now submitted the article to the Guild of Copyeditors and now wait for them. As soon as the article will be copyedited we could resume the review.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bolter21, I'm sorry things have been rough for you lately. If you can find the time now, I would strongly recommend that you work on the other issues Ganesha811 has already raised in the review as soon as possible, so that the GOCE, when they are able to start (probably in two to three weeks), can copyedit that material, too. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Most of the issues were resolved, the main thing to work on now is the Geography section. I struggled to find sources back in 2017, now I'll try my luck again.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Ganesha811 I've continued the work. A quick summary of my work: