This peer review discussion has been closed.
Is it worthy of nomination for a good article, and if not what needs to be done?
Thanks, Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In my opinion, this article does not approach the level of quality required as a prerequisite for peer review. It needs extensive work on the quality of its prose, along with attention to consistency, MoS violations, formatting errors, etc. The whole thing needs a thorough copyediting, to say nothing of being thoroughly examined for comprehensiveness and neutrality problems developed over years of edit warring and disputes. Just a couple of examples:
Many sentences are unnecessarily wordy and seem to be cobbled together; ex. "It is a developed country, an OECD member, and its economy, based on the nominal gross domestic product, was the 41st-largest in the world in 2010, with a very high standard of living, which is the highest in the Middle East."
The "with" construction above is repeated in a disproportionate number of sentences in the whole article, another example of which is "In the early weeks of independence, the government chose the term 'Israeli' to denote a citizen of Israel, with the formal announcement made by Minister of Foreign Affairs Moshe Sharett.
Redundancies such as this are abound: "The name Israel has historically been used, in common and religious usage" --Laser brain(talk) 04:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from RJH – To me it looks to be in pretty decent shape. Still, I did find a few concerns:
The long parenthetical text in the first sentence seems to disrupt the flow. I understand the need, but still...
The sentence in the lead that begins "Following the adoption of a resolution by the..." seems excessive in length. Can that be split?
The article mixes em-dash and en-dash. For example, the sentence beginning "The following day" mixes a partly spaced em-dash with a spaced en-dash. "...Press Freedom Index - the second highest..." uses a simple dash. You should pick one style and use it consistently. See WP:MDASH.
This sentence is a little confusing as I'm assuming that Syria and Lebanon are Arab countries: "Since 1964, Arab countries were trying to divert the headwaters of the Jordan to deprive Israel of water resources, provoking tensions with Syria and Lebanon."
"Egyptian hostilities in the Sinai": hostiles? Otherwise this is somewhat unclear.
There are quite a few single sentence paragraphs. This is particularly evident in the "Museums" section. The number of these should be kept to a minimum per WP:Paragraph.
"...in Israel are association football..." is followed by "The Israeli Premier League is the country's premier soccer league,...": can these be made consistent in the name of the sport?
Done. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
