Talk:White House: attacks in Syria 'won't deter' US mission

Question about a statement

Is the following statement obvious enough to not need sources?

Three U.S. Presidents from both political parties have now used military force in Syria.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably not. But it can be sourced to the previous article, which notes "multiple" presidents have done so. Heavy Water (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

A quote from Al Jazeera

The following quote from Al Jazeera uses parenthesis to clarify "the Americans." Should we change the parenthesis to square brackets? I'm not sure how sacred a direct quote should be. Another option is to use a (Sic) at the end to designate that's how Al Jazeera presented it.

They (the Americans) were very strong to make it clear that this is not the same as Afghanistan.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we should. It's what was actually said that we have to be careful about changing. Heavy Water (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Death toll increased

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has raised their death toll to 19[1].

The war monitor said air raids killed three Syrian troops, 11 Syrian fighters in pro-government militias and five non-Syrian fighters who were aligned with the government.

To keep our article relevant, we can also use that source to report on the "tit-for-tat strikes."

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: OK, I removed the {{under review}} tag if you want to add it. There was also a strike at another US base on Friday morning mentioned in the BBC; it makes sense to incorporate that. Heavy Water (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Done Back to you. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: This looks good so far, but we need to somehow find (likely from a primary USG source) the "when" of the US' announcement of the strikes on Thursday, since that is technically the focal event. Heavy Water (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Done Good call. The DoD page I cited also explicitly states it was a response to a previous attack, as we state in the lede and title. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: Sorry, but I think this needs to be refocused to the most recent event mentioned; the current structure is awkward because later events are mentioned after the focal event. The current focal event can still be used as background, of course. Heavy Water (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

To which events are you referring, that are later? Michael.C.Wright (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe the latest here were the Friday strikes on US bases and the president's "Make no mistake..." comments. Heavy Water (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I see. I think it's appropriate to change the title and focus to something like "US and Iran engage in back-and-forth strikes in Syria" (or similar). What is the procedure for that regarding the template:review? Should I change that back to template:develop? for the change then resubmit for review? Or just leave it as-is? Thanks, Michael.C.Wright (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it's focused on a specific event, not just a series of events. Usually it is recommended to change the template to {{develop}} so no one mistakenly reviews the article as you're working on it. Heavy Water (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Question regarding source

I am trying to Gatwick this article. There was a press conference yesterday and Kirby addressed the situation. Reuters covered it and several orgs syndicated that Reuters article.[2]

i24 News is one of the few sites I've found with original coverage (or at least not the Reuters article, syndicated).[3]

Is i24 News acceptable as a second source for the main topic?

Thanks, Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

On second thought

I think it's now just too difficult and messy to try to keep this article. We should have gotten it published sooner and continued to update through additional articles.

Can I move the article to a sub-page of mine for keeping? Are there any norms or suggestions on naming conventions when doing so?

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: There's been a sort of consensus among en.wn admins recently not to allow users to keep synthesis articles as subpages, at risk of serving as a webhost (see WN:NOT's fourth item). Heavy Water (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Do you see any benefit in continuing to work this article? Do you think it could be reviewed and published in the next 24 hours? Or do you recommend I abandon it and let it be deleted? Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 21:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

If the focal event was on Monday, there's nearly a week left before it would go stale, so I don't see why it couldn't be published. Heavy Water (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4718814 [Passed]

Revision 4718814 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This was very difficult to review. When gatwicking, one doesn't necessarily leave all the information in place and just move it down. Please see edit history for more. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4718814 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This was very difficult to review. When gatwicking, one doesn't necessarily leave all the information in place and just move it down. Please see edit history for more. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

To be clear: it's not that we don't want fleshed-out articles; those are good. But that needs to be done with care to keep the focal event as the focus, not just "something at the top of the article". In other words, a gatwicked article shouldn't look like it was just gatwicked. --Heavy Water (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)