Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Furra

< 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Furra edit

(
)
  • ... that Queen Furra executed men for being bald, old and short.

Created by Abeshababe (talk) and Andrew Davidson (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 01:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC).

  • Article is long enough and within policy. Hook is short enough. Two issues:
Article was created 10 days before nomination. Day before nom, expanded from 780 to 3160 characters / 129 words to 556 words. Neither is five fold expansion (4.05 and 4.31 respectively). Notifying @Andrew Davidson: additional expansion is needed.
Per source for the hook, this claim is from legend - two men escaped by "inventing platform shoes" and "inventing wigs". Hook should be rewritten to clarify this is folklore, not documented fact. Argento Surfer (talk)
  • Additionally, striking ALT0 as unsupported by its source. Even once you change the hook to fix the grammar (done) and to note that this was legend (done), there's nothing in the source mentioning age at all. — LlywelynII 15:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that Ethiopian legend holds that Queen Furra executed men for being bald, old, or short?
  • ALT2 ... that the legendary Queen Furra executed men for being bald, old and short?
  • I have amended LlywelynII's action as it seems better to present alternate hooks separately so that the history of proposals is clear. The issue about age not being in the source is incorrect as the comment above quotes the source directly, "Then she ordered executions, particularly, of all the short and old bald men." LlywelynII's suggested hook is shown as ALT1 and my preferred revision is ALT2 as hooks should be short and succinct. I have done some expansion of the article since the review by Argento Surfer but still have more to do; Christmas has been a distraction. I am keen that we get a result here as the article was started by a new editor during the BBC editathon and it seems good to exhibit the work from such events. Andrew D. (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Restoring grammatical corrections. (Seriously, don't remove those.)
Striking ALT0—as amended—as a violation of DONTLIE (she's a legendary figure, not a historical one); striking ALT0, ALT1, ALT2 as still unsupported by the article or source.
I know this isn't your fault; it's mostly a result of bad policy. We should not be listing citations in the templates here at all. It confuses you as to what's actually in the article, which is the only thing that we're actually concerned with. The one you're giving here is not in the article, Wordpress blogs are not actually reliable sources, and your claim (as already discussed) is not supported by the actual source in the article. (This one.) It says she killed bald men and short men; your own source doesn't claim she killed old men who weren't bald, so I'm not sure why you're so hung up on this. Drop out the "old" and move on with your life and this nomination. — LlywelynII 15:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Reminder to Mssrs Shababe, Davidson, and Igott to let me know when there's a usable hook here. — LlywelynII 13:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT3 ... that Queen Furra was reportedly styled the "Queen of the Women" rather than "Queen of Sidama" due to her partisanship? Source: "On this basis of her partisanship approach, she was deemed as mentu biilo {'Queen of the Women') and not the 'Queen of Sidama'" Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • New enough (some stretching of guideline is allowable given queue length); long enough; within policy (neutral, cited, no close paraphrasing; acceptable use of cited quotations); QPQ not required for first-time editor; I have proposed two new hooks (above) which are both stated and cited. Someone else will need to re-review to confirm the new hooks. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Mary for picking this up and suggesting some new hooks. ALT3 is too stilted for my taste but ALT4 is more promising. I still reckon that the original hook is quite good though and so will continue to advocate for that. I have edited the article to ensure that there's an inline citation for it, along with the links provided above. Andrew D. (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see why this should not go ahead with a variation of ALT0. The main source mentions that she ordered the execution of "all the old and short bald men". It's not clear whether being old, short or bald was sufficient in itself, but if that phrase were quoted in the article and hook, it would get over the ambiguity. The other source seems less reliable (the high-heeled shoes and wigs don't impress me). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think Mary Mark Ockerbloom was invoking WP:DYKSG#D9, which allows some leeway for late nominations if there isn't a major backlog in the number of hooks; in that case, three days would be allowable, and the article was 2615 prose characters at that point, well over the 1500 minimum. However, as there's been a major backlog for many months, and there were in the neighborhood of 300 active nominations back on December 18, I doubt I'd be lenient for that reason, but you could decide differently, LlywelynII. The article's size prior to Andrew Davidson's expansion, which began on December 11, was 762 prose characters according to DYKcheck, meaning that the article needs to be 3810 prose characters assuming it needs to meet the 5x expansion requirement. It's currently 2971 prose characters by DYKcheck's count, so another 839 prose characters are wanted.
I have taken the liberty of adjusting the credits: adding categories is not enough for a "make" credit, nor is adding wikilinks and a "citation needed" tag, nor supplying said citation. Since Andrew Davidson expanded the article from stub length to nearly four times its original length, I've given him a DYKmake rather than a DYKnom; he's done a great deal more work than the original creator. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, yeah, a months-long backlog so long that the newest nominations aren't even displaying is certainly no reason for a no-backlog exemption.

    It is an interesting topic and everyone appreciates the work that went into it, though, so I think a decent compromise is that if someone out of Mssrs Shababe, Gott, and Davidson (or maybe even Mr Surfer and Ms Ockerbloom) pushes this the rest of the way to a 5× by adding a few sourced paragraphs (Moonset's 837 characters) in the next week or two we do some D13 and WP:IAR handwaving and ignore the timeline. If Mr Davidson really preferred ALT0, it also gives him a chance to rephrase it to reflect the sources, as Cwm and I both proposed. (I think ALT4 is pleasantly enigmatic, myself.) — LlywelynII 02:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added about 100 words and another source: it now counts as 3480 characters (629 words). Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Requiring the page to be 5x expanded as well as being new seemed like double jeopardy or a second shift but it is good that the article is still progressing. I have re-established contact with the journalist that I assisted at the editathon. I shan't involve her in this DYK nomination as it's too bureaucratic – rather like the BBC. But, as and when the item reaches the main page, I'll ping her to take a look at the outcome. As she has thousands of followers on Twitter, this may help the number of views we get. Andrew D. (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • No, [snip], the entire problem was that it was not new enough. Having someone (else) bring it to 5× despite the blown deadline was a second chance. Thanks for your help, Ms Ockerbloom. — LlywelynII 13:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This has been knocking around for a long time. I propose that we accept that this article is eligible for DYK and go ahead with ALT1a. Could you give it a tick @LlywelynII:? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT1a ... that Ethiopian legend holds that Queen Furra ordered the execution of men, particularly old and short bald ones?
  • ALT1a is unsatisfactory in a couple of ways. Firstly, the quote isn't the same as that provided originally above so it's not clear what is being quoted. Secondly, Furra was a Sidama queen and that people were not conquered by the Ethiopian empire until later. The main source talks about her as Sidama rather than Ethiopian. I suggest that we duck the issue of nationality as follows. Andrew D. (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ALT1b ... that the legendary Queen Furra ordered the execution of men, particularly short and old bald ones?
  • Gimme a minute. — LlywelynII 10:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

    ALT4 G2G. See above for the drama over timing but Ms Ockerbloom pitched in and we'll call it 5×; long enough (~3.5k elig. chars.); neutral, sourced, and Earwig finds minimal copyvio; ALT4 terse enough, intriguing, and sourced. ALT 1a/b are both mistaken in saying she ordered executions of some men, particularly including short and old bald ones: the sources state she specifically ordered the execution of the short and bald ones or the short and old bald ones. Both Cwm and Mr Davidson seem to have misunderstood the grammar of the second source. It's fine, though, since both ALT3 and 4 are fine. — LlywelynII 13:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't accept LlywelynII's judgment on the grammatical point. As LlywelynII proposed hooks themself and has now started making personal attacks, they seem too involved to be getting the last word on this. Can we have an independent reviewer, please. Andrew D. (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The high-handed rudeness started on your end, but—absolutely—apologies if you take git as a strong term instead of a mild one. I even linked the article discussing its rather mild nature, but everyone's different and I certainly appreciate your work bringing new articles in, even if not the tone you took w/r/t the rest of us. I'm fine with a second reviewer if wanted, though I don't think any of the ALTs were mine and it seems superfluous.

    The grammar issues are straightforward: as already covered, neither source in the article supports the idea she executed old men who were neither bald nor short. Simply use those adjectives instead. Similarly, one source says she ordered the execution of all men who were short or bald. The other says, "Then she ordered executions, particularly, of all the short and old bald men." The second comma makes the "particularly" refer to the entire sentence and limits the executions being discussed to the sorts of men who are listed and not to any other. — LlywelynII 14:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

    As such, restriking the ALTs above (again), but open—as always—to a rephrasing supported by the sources. Don't see the problem with simply using ALT4 instead, though the 2nd reviewer may feel otherwise. — LlywelynII 14:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Calling someone a "rude git" is about a light year removed from a "mild term". Git, as you so conveniently linked, stands for "denoting an unpleasant, silly, incompetent, stupid, annoying, senile, elderly or childish person" That is not a 'mild' insult, but an egregious one. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Welp, reread the article, which specifically describes it as a milder term of opprobrium. Again, it may be out of date and I have apologized for it being taken any more harshly than that, despite the lack of apology on the other end. This really isn't the place for an extended discussion of British manners and diction, though. You're welcome to continue to berate me on my talk page. — LlywelynII 14:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • New reviewer still needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    Eh, not really. As mentioned, ALT4 is good to go. Was there actually a problem with it? — LlywelynII 12:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
    ALT4 is approved. The ongoing disagreement appears to be over ALT 1a/b, which is not needed to move this forward, since ALT4 is acceptable. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Is ALT4 acceptable to Andrew D., the original nominator (who described it as "more promising")? He's the one who called for a new reviewer. Though, as this is nearly three months old, it would be good to have the nomination settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I remain dissatisfied, alas. Perhaps we should ask back the first reviewer, Argento Surfer, to see if they have any further thoughts which may help us? Andrew D. (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Alt4 is acceptable, and my earlier concern about expansion has been addressed. Aside from Andrew's concerns about Alt1a, both Alt1a and b are too vague to be interesting. Don't most rulers have to order the execution of men at some point? The interesting bit is that she ordered their execution for being bald and short. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Furra&oldid=944832789"