Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Dolo hospital airstrike

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following 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 Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.7% of all FPs 15:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Dolo hospital airstrike edit

(
)

Created by Chetsford (talk). Self-nominated at 10:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC).

  • New, in time, long enough, sourced, inline hook citation checks out, no apparent copyvios. Chetsford, QPQ needed. Also, please clip the newspapers.com articles so that those without subscriptions can also access the content. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Usernameunique - thanks much, I've finished the QPQ now. Chetsford (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Chetsford, could you also clip the newspapers.com articles so that others can read them? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Usernameunique: Note that your clipping request above is not part of the DYK rules, and also that per WP:SOURCEACCESS, it is advised to "not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access". North America1000 12:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Northamerica1000, they are not being rejected, nor are they "difficult or costly to access". Rather, newspapers.com provides a simple way of letting other people access them: clipping. Moreover, since at least one of the articles supports the hook fact, I think it is reasonable to ask Chetsford to clip the articles in question. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I apologize, I've been a bit behind and haven't had a chance to get around to clipping all the articles. I'm not 100% sure I know how to do it, but I'll figure it out and get to it ASAP. Chetsford (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It has been over a month without a response or edit from Chetsford. There needs to be progress on this soon if the nomination is to proceed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably won't be able to get to this in a timely manner. If clipping is a prerequisite to promotion I may have to withdraw this nomination. Apologies, I will make a note of this for future nominations. Chetsford (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look more closely at this, I wonder why clipping is being required at all—I can't recall ever seeing such a case. Usernameunique, the AGF tick was invented for just this reason, that we assume good faith that the sources are as claimed, even if they are behind a firewall or not on line at all. Clipping might be required at FAC, but at DYK? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, neither FAC nor GA nor DYK requires clipping. ∯WBGconverse 12:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • --Hook is blatantly wrong and I have struck it, for there is considerable doubt over the precise death tally. Also, the statement is not hooky, at all. Airstrikes can kill lots more than 30 and it's entirely non-surprising.
    The way to elicit attention of the reader is to emphasize upon the extraordinary fact that Italy was bombing a hospital; something which is now deemed as a war-crime. So, a new hook, please:-) ∯WBGconverse 13:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no problem changing the hook, but on what basis is it "blatantly wrong"? Three sources report death totals of 22, 28, and 30. The hook establishes that between zero and 30 people were killed. If you have better sources and could add them to the article, that would be appreciated. "Something which is now deemed as a war-crime" - under customary international law I'm certain attacking a hospital was a war crime in 1935 as well, and it was most certainly a codified war crime under the convention of 1864. A hook which suggested otherwise would be blatantly wrong, I'm sure. Chetsford (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Chetsford, when tolls of 22, 28 and 30 are reported, claiming as many as 30 people were killed is wrong. As many as means different things to different readers across different contexts and it does not always equate to maximum.
AFAIR, the codifications of not striking hospitals, centers of art et al came in effect from 1907. Also, I was not asking for any insertion about war crime bit, either and I mentioned the particular locus as to locating a more interesting angle (violation of war-conventions) to write a hook. Something of the form:-
ALT1 ... that Italy chose to assault a Red Cross Hospital during the Dolo hospital airstrike in the Second Italo-Ethiopian War?
∯WBGconverse 13:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
... when tolls of 22, 28 and 30 are reported, claiming as many as 30 people were killed is wrong ... No.
...AFAIR, the codifications of not striking hospitals, centers of art et al came in effect from 1907. As I said, the inviolability and neutrality of hospitals was codified in the convention of 1864. Chetsford (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Yep, that's wrong. 22 is not as many as 30. ∯WBGconverse 17:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
"Yep, that's wrong." As I, and others, have counseled you: no, it isn't. If you require further clarification or would like to debate and/or promote any alternate theories of predicate logic, I suggest you take this to a Talk page or to DYK discussion as there's probably no point in continuing it here since we've moved to a new hook. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have no idea why Winged Blades of Godric gave this an AGF tick when saying "Hook is blatantly wrong and I have struck it", because that tick means the nomination has passed, which is clearly not the case. The slash icon is the best given the hook strike. Also, Chetsford is correct: saying "as many as 30 people were killed" when the reports include the number 30 is not wrong at all, since "as many as" gives an upper limit. It is, however, not a good idea to give the high number of a range of reports in a hook, because it gives emphasis to a number that may well be incorrect. (I don't know the comparative reliability of the sources and their source material.) While the article gives the number dead in the lead as 22 to 30, if there were 2 Swedes and between 18 and 28 Ethiopians killed, shouldn't that range be 20 to 30? For ALT1, I'm wondering why "Italy chose to assault" rather than "the Italian Air Force chose to bomb" (when I see "assault", I imagine a ground assault), and would suggest a piped link rather than the direct one to the article: "a Red Cross hospital in Dolo during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War?" (Still not happy with the flow of "chose to", but couldn't find any better wording that was as clear that this the hospital was picked for bombing, not struck as the result of targeting gone awry.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm also not thrilled by the use of "chose" simply because it's an unusual, albeit not necessarily incorrect, word to use in reference to a corporate body. I'd suggest -
We can't name Tito Minnetti by name since Italy never attributed their retaliation specifically to him, only to an unnamed Italian aviator (the article, itself, is careful to only mention that Minnetti was lost at Dolo right before the attack but doesn't make a direct connection). I think this is hooky, though, as the casual observer will wonder what the circumstances of the execution were that caused a Swedish installation to come under attack. And, indeed, since the role of Sweden in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War is not widely known, it will be unlikely anyone will realize this occurred in Ethiopia at all until they click. It also maintains a NPOV by acknowledging both of the war crimes that occurred on the part of the two separate parties to the conflict. Chetsford (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
This is damn good. ∯WBGconverse 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @BMS:-The article was solidly crafted with due sourcing and the tick for that. That, I've struck the hook, there did not lie any possibility of mistaken promotion. ∯WBGconverse 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
A tick indicates a nom is ready for promotion. You can't strike the hook and then tick the nom. We can't promote blank space to the main page. Chetsford (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
We can't promote blank space to the main page--I have my assurances that not all are fuckwits. ∯WBGconverse 19:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Reviewer needed to formally approve ALT2 and the rest of the nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - Hook does not give enough context to the event. Based on ALT2, a reader may make the assumption, that Sweden may have had a part in the execution of an Italian pilot. A new hook is requested.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: After the review, I see neutrality issues were resolved by including the response of Euthopia regarding the event which is the subject of the article. This was not included in the 9 February 2019 version. The hook could be more accurate. Nominator is a heavy contributor to DYK with 91 credits at the time of this review; I will assume good faith that when the nominator said that QPQ was done on 10 February, that it was. Please provide more possible hooks, so that this nomination may proceed. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Chetsford (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The above new hook is satisfactory. Let's open this up to a new reviewer, to see if this new hook is interesting to that new reviewer.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Chetsford: I know you must be exhausted with this process. Forgive me but the hook needs to mention the location. As written, the most reasonable assumption from reading the hook is that the hospital is located in Sweden. I have quietly been watching this nomination languish for months and I happy to pass the hook if the location is mentioned. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: this hook is hooky but I am concerned it will be misunderstood. Can you suggest a modified version I can review and approve? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: how about this? ALT3 "... that Italy bombed a Swedish hospital, in Dolo, during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War?
--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I am going to start a fresh review under the assumption that the article's creator is no longer interested in pursuing this DYK nomination and that a reviewer, RightCowLeftCoast, has adopted the nomination. Credit should go to both the article's creator (who completed the QPQ) and RightCowLeftCoast for supplying a hook.

First let's address "hookiness". ALT3 is "hooky" because, with out misleading the reader, it begs the question "Wait?! What?! Why is Sweden involved in a war between Italy and Ethiopia?!?!" The article sufficiently answers that question. (Spoiler alert: The answer is because the Swedish doctors were on a humanitarian Red Cross mission and Sweden and Ethiopia had a previous relationship, which is news to most of our readers. Also news to me is that Swedish doctors had "extensive experience working in Ethiopia" which, at least to me, is a surprising thing to learn about the time period (1935).)

ALT3 is short enough, neutral!!! and cited inline to a reliable source (the abstract of which is enough to verify the hook). AGF to boot although unnecessary. I have struck all other hooks.

Now to the article:

  • The article was created on February 9, 2019 and therefore was new enough when nominated the same day.
  • It is long enough at 3845 characters.
  • The article is well cited to reliable sources.
  • According to EarWig, the article does not contain any plagiarism or close paraphrasing of concern.
  • The article follows WP:NPOV.

--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Prep 6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Dolo_hospital_airstrike&oldid=922079819"