Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/United Nations Security Council Resolution 2118

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 PFHLai (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2118 edit

(
)

Created by Lihaas (talk). Self nominated at 15:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC).

  • Length and date are ok and NPOV is adequate. I don't know if some of the more extensive quotes from political leaders, particularly in the Reaction section are really necessary, but that's just a preference on my part (I'm not personally fond of them) and it's really up to you. Also, you might want to {{cite web}}ify the bare url refs, but again not a requirement (it's just cleaner that way). I like the alt hook much better, but this is where I have a question. Both the alt and the article say "June 30, 2014," but in the Bloomberg article that provides many of the article's cites and the actual UN press release it says "by mid-2014." I'm not sure if something else says June 30th, but I think the article might need to be modified. Other than that, I found no problems. Thingg⊕⊗ 22:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, per WP:DYKSG#D3, bare urls are not allowed on DYK articles, so all of the bare urls will need to be fixed. In addition, while extensive quotes are allowed, the longer ones need to be blockquoted per WP:MOSQUOTE. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Heh whoops I did not realize that was a rule. My bad. I fixed all of the refs except for one that I'm not sure what exactly is being cited on that page (it's number 13 as of this revision).
Also, I didn't notice it before, but there is tag at the bottom of the article and there appears to be some disagreement on the talk page, some of it quite recent. I am (apparently) a little unfamiliar with how DYK deals with that kind of thing (I haven't been around DYK much since 2009), but I thought I should point that out. Thingg⊕⊗ 14:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Welcome back, Thingg! Yeah, as I understand it, rules have been codified more over the past several years, and the DYK process has become more automated at the same time. I tracked down that tag, which isn't for an article at all (though it says it is), but misapplied to one of the templates at the bottom. This article really shouldn't run on the main page with that sort of tag, so I've removed it from the template in question. If Lihaas wants it on the template, then either the template has to be removed from this page, or this nomination won't be able to be approved. As for the article and talk page disagreement, if the article is unstable, then approval should be withheld until things stablize; since editing has only recently resumed, allowing a couple of days is probably a good idea, if the other issues are settled sooner. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The date mention the first half of 2014 which is 30 June, though ive since seen that date mentione elsewhere (probably theyr jus t reading WP)Reflinks done. I don't see a tag though. The issue in talk seems to be resolved (?) as Ive changed the wording per accomodation.Lihaas (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response, Lihaas. Apologies for mishandling the template fix, and thanks for catching it. I've just struck the original hook because it's too long at 211 characters; please feel free to propose a new ALT version of it that's below 200. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Still not sure where you went wrong anyhoo .It shoul dbe good now right? Ive no qualms with either hook.Lihaas (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, serious problems still remain. The article continues to acquire bare URLs, so those will have to be fixed. I've blockquoted the longer quotes per WP:MOSQUOTE. In trying to sort out the Kerry quote in the Reactions section, I discovered that the opening sentence, starting "U.S Secretary of State John Kerry said that the Syrian government" is a very close paraphrase of the equivalent sentence in the source, which is frankly alarming, since it means similar text throughout will need to be checked for close paraphrasing. In addition, there's far too much direct quoting in this section (including the exact interpolations from the source between the Kerry quotes); you need to put far more into your own words here. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Done reflinks and intro reword. What more to do?Lihaas (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like there was some material copied into this article from Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons without proper attribution; were any other articles thus copied? There is also close paraphrasing of external sources: compare for example "while Russia was willing to help guard the chemical-weapons sites in Syria, it would not take custody of Syria's arsenal" with "while Moscow is willing to help guard chemical-weapons sites in Syria, it won’t take custody of Syria’s munitions". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Everythign copied from there came with soruces too. Its the backrground section.
Done?Lihaas (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Before I ask Nikkimaria to check again, the article continues to accumulate bare URL refs, which is forbidden by DYK rules. This is the third time we've had to mention it. Please make sure everything is fixed before asking again. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, those were the newly added (yesterday) ones. DONELihaas (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello??!!! Its ready and waiting...Lihaas (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Er, no, it isn't. As I told you before, the article contains material copied from other Wikipedia articles without proper attribution. As explained at WP:CWW, even if the material includes sources, in order to meet our licensing terms you must provide attribution to the author(s) of the article from which you took that content. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Okey, how to do that? If you tell me Ill easily/gladly do that. I ust don't know how to. So lets not hold up on that because there is nothing stopping it hapmpening if that is knownLihaas (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Did you take a look at WP:CWW, and its explanation of what's required and how to do it? What wasn't clear?
Also, at the moment, the first two paragraphs of the Resolution section are uncited, and need to be by DYK rules. In particular, the last sentence of the second paragraph absolutely must have a citation, because it contains the 30 June 2014 date used in the only remaining hook, and that exact date must be cited by an inline source citation. Fuzzy dates like "mid-2014" are not sufficiently precise to count. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Done bothLihaas (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
And now it's ready to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2118&oldid=1022568692"