- 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) 08:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Talbieh Camp edit
... that when Talbieh Refugee Camp first opened, most of its inhabitants were Palestinian displaced persons, as opposed to refugees?
Created by Tucoxn (talk). Self-nominated at 19:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC).
- Comment The articles states, "mostly Bedouin", rather than "Palestinian". Edwardx (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Edwardx: Would you prefer ALT1:
- ALT1: ... that when Talbieh Refugee Camp first opened, most of its inhabitants were displaced persons, as opposed to refugees?
- - tucoxn\talk 01:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Full review needed now that hook has been settled on; striking original hook due to issues raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Meets newness, length, and neutrality requirements. However, there are numerous sourcing problems. The UNRWA source in footnote 1 is a dead link. I found the hook information in the Jewish Virtual Library source, and used that as the cite in the article, but the UNRWA source is cited in other places, so that needs to be taken care of. Also, I don't understand how the Google pushpin map in footnote 3 verifies this sentence: Because of their status as displaced persons, many of the camp's residents have documentation allowing them to work legally in Jordan. The wordpress source in footnote 4 is a non-reliable source and should be deleted. Finally, this sentence – As of 2013, Talbieh Camp was the only Palestinian refugee camp where young men outperformed young women in terms of completing post-secondary education. – is sourced to a 2011 publication, which doesn't mention it at all. QPQ done. Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks to Yoninah for the thorough review – the issues raised above have been addressed. The article is ready for a new review. - tucoxn\talk 13:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Tucoxn thank you for taking care of the footnote and removing the Google pushpin map and the wordpress source. However, the 2013 statistic mentioned above is still sourced to a 2011 publication, which doesn't mention it at all. Yoninah (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
