- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: Promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Khaled Ali edit
- ALT1: ... that Khaled Ali (pictured) is the youngest presidential candidate in the upcoming Egyptian presidential election?
- ALT2: ... that Khaled Ali (pictured) was involved in several prominent court cases against the Egyptian government including the 2010 case which he won mandating a higher minimum wage?
Created/expanded by Ocaasi (talk). Nominated by The Egyptian Liberal (talk) at 14:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
As current rules, no need for QPQ. Article is long enough and nominated in a timely fashion. All images used on article have a copyright tag that is acceptable for main page usage. Plagiarism spot check here, here, here give me no real cause for concern. ALT2: is supported by article text which has citations support support the text.
One or two fact tags needing cleaning.
Article appears neutral enough to me. I think some people might spot a few phrases that could be viewed as puffery but meh. I think some people might find it overly positive towards him depending on the politics involved. I don't know enough to be really clear on this, so assuming it should be good.
alt1: Sources are there for hook one as the fact is supported in source name. Hook is mentioned in the article lead. Hook does NOT appear in article text with a citation. --LauraHale (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Fact tags need cleaning. (Lead should probably better reflect text of article in summarising it.) Then is probably good to go for ALT2. --LauraHale (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fact/citation needed tags updated with references. Not exactly sure what to add to the lead. It covers the major sections and points. I just finished this article last week so I'm still a bit close to it to judge. If anyone else would like to spruce up the lead, feel free. Otherwise, I think it's 'good enough' for DYK, not to say anything bad about DYK, just that the lead meets basic requirements. Ocaasi t | c 02:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Good to go with ALT2. --LauraHale (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am concerned that phrasing used by this article may be too close to that of its sources, particularly this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not seeing it in here. Can you provide examples? --LauraHale (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a technical limitation of those types of tools - if it's not word-for-word copyvio, they generally won't pick up on it. In this case, compare "He led prosecution of government corruption during Mubarak's rule, suing government officials for illegally selling public land and public sector factories" with "He also led the case against government corruption during the Mubarak years, taking government officials to court for illegally selling public land and public sector factories.", or "He says that it is in the military’s interest not to ruin its relationship with civilians like the police have. He is also critical of the military’s ownership of industry and manufacturing facilities" with "saying that it is in the military’s best interest to not sour its relationship with civilians as the police have already done. He was also critical of the military’s ownership of industry and manufacturing facilities." Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have gotten tied up with close paraphrasing before. I try to avoid it by using a variety of sources and mixing up words and phrasings, but I don't always get everything well enough. I do think the remaining instances are short (1-3 sentence instances perhaps that bear a structural resemblance but have mostly unique wording). I'm happy to run over this again and try and clear any instances up. Ocaasi t | c 22:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- When writing an article about a living person (especially one running for office), it's best to stay close to the source as long as it's not plagiarism (word-for-word copyvio). If there is no more objections, I say we should post it. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- You are incorrect: plagiarism and copyvio are not the same thing, and phrasing need not be word-for-word to be problematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- When writing an article about a living person (especially one running for office), it's best to stay close to the source as long as it's not plagiarism (word-for-word copyvio). If there is no more objections, I say we should post it. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have gotten tied up with close paraphrasing before. I try to avoid it by using a variety of sources and mixing up words and phrasings, but I don't always get everything well enough. I do think the remaining instances are short (1-3 sentence instances perhaps that bear a structural resemblance but have mostly unique wording). I'm happy to run over this again and try and clear any instances up. Ocaasi t | c 22:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a technical limitation of those types of tools - if it's not word-for-word copyvio, they generally won't pick up on it. In this case, compare "He led prosecution of government corruption during Mubarak's rule, suing government officials for illegally selling public land and public sector factories" with "He also led the case against government corruption during the Mubarak years, taking government officials to court for illegally selling public land and public sector factories.", or "He says that it is in the military’s interest not to ruin its relationship with civilians like the police have. He is also critical of the military’s ownership of industry and manufacturing facilities" with "saying that it is in the military’s best interest to not sour its relationship with civilians as the police have already done. He was also critical of the military’s ownership of industry and manufacturing facilities." Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not seeing it in here. Can you provide examples? --LauraHale (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Seeing this article has run into the usual roadblock, I am in the process of reviewing the article and checking for close paraphrasing. This article is DYK-worthy and just needs a bit of tweaking. Also, I think the first two hooks need more punch, so I am offering this ALT3 instead.
- ALT3: ... that labor lawyer and activist Khaled Ali (pictured) won a landmark case against the Egyptian government in 2010, mandating a higher minimum wage for all workers?
- I have tweaked a number of sentences and think this is ready to go now. My personal choice for a hook is ALT3, which is a streamlined version of ALT2. Marrante (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately this article still contains very close paraphrasing from a variety of sources. Compare for example "He emphasizes the importance of education as a primary tool to free the nation from poverty" with "Emphasizing the importance of education, Ali suggested that it is the most fundamental tool to liberate the nation from poverty", or "Ali emphasized that his primary focus as president would be the renationalisation of Egyptian state assets" with "He stressed that his primary focus as president would be the renationalisation of Egyptian state assets." Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Extensive discussion moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Issues remain - compare for example "Ali is not well known to the majority of Egyptians and even those who are familiar with him have tended to be surprised by his decision to run. His profile does not compare to the other "star" candidates in the race" with "Ali is not known to the majority of Egyptians. And for the few who know him, his decision to run is often met with surprise. His profile doesn’t beat those of star contestants in the presidential race". I recommend editors working on this article recheck all sources thoroughly for further issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate your effort here as well Nikkimaria. I was less aware of the remaining close paraphrasing issues than I thought. I hope that is one of the last ones. I tried to paraphrase it better, although the sentences still follow each other. There is direct attribution in the text for the view coming from the newspaper. I think that helps somewhat, though maybe not completely. Ocaasi t | c 21:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, could you please make a list of all your issues so they can be addressed to your satisfaction? Since you know where they all are, it should be an easy matter for you to provide that information. Thank you. Marrante (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't know where they all are - I raised concerns here because three times I've spotchecked a couple of sources, and all three times found issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Ready for a new review. Marrante (talk) 09:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Whoever is elected must be more accountable than Mubarak, says Ali, vowing that if elected, he will empower the poor" vs "Ali says whoever is elected must be more accountable to Egyptians than Mubarak...vows that if he's elected, he'll empower impoverished Egyptians". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I knew you'd jump on that and I decided to leave those words as they were anyway because "whoever is elected must be accountable" is essentially a cliche, ("whoever is elected" = over 1 million hits on Google; "must be accountable" = 1,700,000 hits). So is "empower the poor" (18,400,000 hits). I challenge this charge of close paraphrasing. Go find me some other examples and prove this article is still problematic. Marrante (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- ALT4: ... that presidential candidate Khaled Ali (pictured) announced he was running in the 2012 Egyptian election the day after he turned 40 and became eligible to run?
- This actually belongs with the reply, above (at 13:46). I forgot to mention the word "vow". This was also a word I decided not to change because "vow" is more solemn than "promise" and "swear" doesn't sound as good. "Said he would" is completely insufficient to convey the meaning of "vow", so "vow" is the reasonable choice to make here, even though it appears in the source. The sentence I wrote is different enough in my opinion and I invite other editors to weigh in. Marrante (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- "He called for a mixed economy in which the public, private and cooperative sectors work together to prevent price fixing and monopolistic practices" vs "calls for a mixed economy in which the public, private and cooperative sectors can all work in partnership so as to prevent price fixing and other monopolistic practices". By the way, close paraphrasing need not be only direct copying of words, but also phrasing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I forgot to fix that sentence. Thank you for finding it. I am well aware that the structure of the sentence can also be an issue and therefore was attentive to changing it in the re-write. Have you found any other problems? Please indicate the section where it appears. Thank you. Marrante (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have corrected the problem you identified, but not changed all of the words, some of which are technical terms and are now wikilinked. Those words should remain as they are in order for the sentence to have any comprehensible meaning. To change just for the sake of it risks turning a good sentence into nonsense and according to WP:PARAPHRASE, good writing and common sense should prevail in those cases. Marrante (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just to make it clear, the above posts dated March 27 [and now, those dated March 28 and beyond] are part of the continuing discussion about close paraphrasing in this article, which is apparently now resolved following the complete revision of the original author's article. The article is now ready and waiting for a review. My personal preferences are for the ALT3 or ALT4 hooks. (There is no "main hook" per se, it was incorrectly numbered as ALT1.) Marrante (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC) Amended: Marrante (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- In terms of structural issues, compare "the workers had set the stage and any analysis of the revolution that didn't take that into account was superficial" with "Workers laid the ground for the emergence of this revolution, and I believe that any analysis which says otherwise is superficial", or "defame activists from civil society protesting against Mubarak, his privatizing of state-owned companies and against military trials of civilians" vs "defaming civil society actors who stood against Mubarak and his policies of privatization of state institutions, as well as against military trials of civilians", or "achieve the revolution's goals of providing freedom and a better life for every Egyptian" vs "achieving the revolution's goals in hopes of providing freedom and a better life for each citizen". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- All three of these complaints are nitpicking and I challenge them. The sentence follows a logical order, which is not clear from the excerpt you quoted above, and aside from that, is about an interview with Ali and begins with the words Ali said. Here is the full sentence: Ali said that while middle class youth sparked the Arab spring revolution, which expressed the political will of the Egyptian people of different classes, the workers had set the stage and any analysis of the revolution that didn't take that into account was superficial. In a quote, or even a paraphrase of a quote, the structure should remain the same. This sentence is not "close paraphrasing", it is good writing. The second case you cite follows the order of events and like the first example, is clearly paraphrasing a quote, beginning with the words, Ali criticized. The full sentence is, Ali criticized the Ministry of Solidarity for what he saw as their attempt to "monopolize" patriotism and defame activists protesting against Mubarak, his privatizing of state-owned companies and against military trials of civilians. The sentence is from a press conference in late August 2011. The events he's speaking about took place from January to that date. The order was 1) Arab Spring protests against Mubarak, demanding he step down, 2) establishment of the military interim government, 3) dramatic increase in the number of military trials of civilians. Clearly, the passage you are complaining about is based on the order of events and therefore, the structure is correct and should not be changed. I did, however, remove the words "from civil society", since the article has previously made it clear where the activists came from. The third case you cite is exactly the same as the first, the paraphrase of a quote and begins with the words, Ali says. The full sentence is, Ali says his mission is to achieve the revolution's goals of providing freedom and a better life for every Egyptian. Changing this sentence, which is short, would mangle the message. The structure should follow the original quote and is correct. Marrante (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to quote, that's fine- but you need to use quotation marks to make it clear that you're quoting. If not, then you need to rephrase. Four instances of this type of problem are indicative of a problem to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- WP:PARAPHRASE says under the heading "When is close paraphrase permitted?," brief instances of indirect quotation may be acceptable without quotation marks with in-text attribution. All the cases you cite are covered under this exception and have the required attribution. The problem of close paraphrasing that existed before March 24 has been addressed by a complete, sentence-by-sentence comparison with the source/s. Sentences that were not in quotes were rewritten; the quotes were also examined. The only problem remaining is your persistent nitpicking, which puts off prospective reviewers, particularly those new to DYK. Marrante (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- There's a difference between "brief instances" and "multiple significant instances", and a newbie really doesn't have the experience to deal with an article with such a history. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
*I see what you mean about a newbie, since my experience having written more than 50 DYKs is still so inadequate, an article I think is perfectly good, you have called problematic and one having "such a history". Had this been my first article, I'd never have written a second. Please show me how all four of the passages you have cited should be written to satisfy your impeccable standards. Thank you. Marrante (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to you, but to the theoretical "new to DYK" reviewer you cite above; as for the history, as you yourself point out, the article was rewritten while at DYK. Now, for those passages, one option would be to quote directly, or to combine material from different sources. For example, you could write "Ali says he intends to increase the quality of life and the freedom of each citizen (particularly the poor), satisfying the aims of the revolution." I'm sure you could come up with a more elegant phrasing if you set yourself to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd just like to thank you both for your continued diligent work on this. It's my problem that either of you have to deal with it. But be nice to eachother, we're on the same team. Ocaasi t | c 12:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I was using myself as an example of someone experienced, not as an example of a newbie. "Ali says he intends" is a far cry from "says his mission is". All politicians say they intend to increase the quality of life of their electorate. The rare leader has a mission and inspires the electorate with it. Removing "mission" neither satisfies WP:PARAPHRASE nor does justice to the article. Marrante (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for approving the article, but I question two of your edits. One edit has created a run-on sentence and is difficult to parse. You also inserted an error, which is that it wasn't the military elite who were being criticized as having undue influence despite their connections to Mubarak, it was the power elite, the financial oligarchs. The other eidt removed a critical element of the sentence, fundamentally weakening the description of Ali's quote. He promised not just to empower the poor, but to stand up to the military and power elite. Imagine Romney, Obama or Sarkozy saying that. It would be laughed at as ludicrous and unbelievable, so beholden are they to those military and power (including financial) elites, which I think is generally safe to say, what most people in the world consider to be the source of much of the world's problems. I think that element of the sentence needs to be in there, copyright vio or not. Marrante (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Go ahead and change it (fix it) and if Nikkimaria disagrees we can take the rest of the debate to the talk page seeing how its a minor issue. Once you change it, I believe the article would be good to go. PS: Awesome work everybody :D -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Already done. I prefer the ALT3 hook, which I think encapsulates Ali's focus well and I think in today's global economic environment, the topic of the hook has wide appeal. However, looking at it just now, I think it could be more clearly stated, so here is another hook:
- ALT5: ... that labor lawyer and activist Khaled Ali (pictured) filed a landmark lawsuit against the Egyptian government in 2010 and won a higher minimum wage for all workers?