I'll take this. I should have a comprehensive review in about a day.
Rainbow unicorn, I see that you haven't contributed to the article before nominating, do you or does anybody else know the main contributors to this who might be willing to handle my future comments? JAGUAR11:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Initial comments
Lead
The first paragraph of the lead should be expanded slightly in accordance to
WP:LEAD and
MOS:LAYOUT. If it can't be expanded, then merge some content from elsewhere in the lead to make the opening paragraph more proportionate
Per
WP:LEADCITE, citations in the lead are discouraged unless it's citing controversial information. I realise that the whole topic is controversial, but there are some instances of citations in the lead that do not need to be there. Examples include bare facts such as "The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was targeted at Washington D.C.,[2]" and "The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was targeted at Washington D.C.,[2]"
"The United States responded to 9/11 by launching the War on Terror" - responding to 9/11 sounds vague, it might sound better as responded to the attacks or just cut '9/11' altogether
I'm surprised that the initiation of the
Homeland Security Act and several conspiracy theories are not included in the lead - I think this would be an important addition in order for the lead to summarise
I added specific mentions of legislation to the lead. I did not mention the conspiracy theories because I do not think they are important enough to be mentioned in the lead.
PointsofNoReturn (
talk)
22:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)reply
The last paragraph "On November 18, 2006, construction of One World Trade Center began..." is too short for a standalone paragraph. I'd recommend merging it
I think he means that it doesn't look right to have a section with no content, I agree. It was just "Further information" links, so I removed the ones already link to and moved one to a different sub-section.
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
19:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)reply
"According to bin Laden, Muslim legal scholars, "have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries."" - sounds confusing. Did Muslim legal scholars say that? If so the quotes need to be paraphrased
"Others have argued that 9/11 was a strategic move with the objective of provoking America into a war that would incite a pan-Islamic revolution" - who are the others? Is this relating to conspiracy theorists?
"At 9:40 a.m., the FAA grounded all aircraft within the continental U.S." - this is the first mention of the FAA, so it needs to be written out fully and linked
"Fifteen of the men were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one (Atta) from Egypt" - might be worth removing Atta here as this is the first mention of him. Readers would not know what this means
"These conversations did not specifically mention the World Trade Center or Pentagon, or other specifics" -
WP:OVERLINK of World Trade Center and Pentagon
On hold for now. I'll come back to this later and make a decision whether or not to gather second opinions on this. JAGUAR12:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)reply
I knew that this is a controversial topic and I'm still debating whether or not to close this now. I haven't even done a full source check yet and there are too many glaring issues that I doubt anyone would address, since the nominator has never contributed to the article. I was going to gather second opinions so I could know if somebody would interested in handling this or offering their opinions whether or not this should be failed. I'll wait a while and see what the responses are. JAGUAR10:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)reply
I just noticed this nomination and I am willing to help with improving this article. I can address these issues before you get a second opinion.
PointsofNoReturn (
talk)
22:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Great! Thanks for also helping. I have been busy with work recently and haven't been on Wikipedia much. I think we are still awaiting a second opinion.
PointsofNoReturn (
talk)
00:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Close - promoted
OK, sorry for the delay here but it took me a while to do a source check and I don't think we need a second opinion any more as I'm happy that this article now meets the GA criteria. The sources, a great number reliable and detailed all provide enough information on the content in this article. Given the complexity and controversy with this article I was cautious to leave it on hold for a second opinion, but after reading it again if dawned on me that it is well-written and comprehensive, the two most important things of the criteria. Well done on all the work! This one is well deserved. JAGUAR22:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)reply