Template:Did you know nominations/Russia-Syria-Iran-Iraq Coalition

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Russia-Syria-Iran-Iraq Coalition[edit]

(
)

Created by Hadi.anani (talk). Nominated by Mhhossein (talk) at 11:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC).

  • Excellent article, Hadi.anani and, thank you, to Mhhossein for nominating it! It passes all the criteria (Newness - PASS; Length - PASS; Policy - PASS; QPQ - PASS; Hook - PASS) and is enthusiastically cleared for queue. Two notes for any secondary reviewers ... the article says it was "denied by Russian officials," however, that is fine because the hook says "may have been." Also, the sources are in Russian and I can only sketchily confirm them, however, I GF clear it as I've read it elsewhere in non-RUS RS. edit - proposed ALT1 and cleared along with primary LavaBaron (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The article needs copyediting for English grammar. There is one sentence fragment in the lead; many other sentences lack commas, or have noun-verb disagreement, such as:
  • This war is being conducted between multiple opposition and government groups has 250,000 people to be killed and driven more than 10 million from their homes.
  • With most opponents, and their western allies demanding Assad's departure as a precondition for talks, efforts to find a solution has failed so far.
  • Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • DYK is not a GA, FA, or A-class review. Grammar is not a criteria. DYK is an inclusive environment that provides an excellent opportunity for non-EFL speakers to promote their work provided it meets a minimum threshold of tightly defined criteria. If you want to terminate this inclusiveness by creating new criteria, you'll need to initiate a discussion, instead of issuing a decree. LavaBaron (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Grammar is most definitely a criteria, and it has been discussed extensively by DYK editors over the past year. This will not be promoted to the main page in this condition. Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid you are mistaken, Yoninah. Grammar is only a criteria in the structure of the hook, not material that appears in the article. If I'm mistaken, kindly provide a wikilink to WP:DYK, WP:DYKSG or WP:DYKR to correct me so yet another needless delay doesn't occur. Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • If you want a discussion, don't preempt it by slapping your approval tick on it till we're finished. And stop insinuating your constant putdowns into links. Over the past year, a huge effort has been made to ensure that articles comply with basic grammar rules before they are promoted. Nominators are often asked to contact the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for help in bringing an article up to basic English standards. I realize that you are new here and perhaps are not aware of these things, but a little humility, please. DYK is supposed to be a friendly place. Yoninah (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Yoninah - first, do not edit my comments. You are welcome to edit your own, but your latest edit in which you edited mine was unwelcome and inappropriate. This is a fairly basic tenet of WP. For someone who dedicates such volumes of text to repeatedly and gratuitously reminding others of his/her Wikiage, I am surprised you don't know that.
Second, I have repeatedly asked you to indicate where, in the DYK criteria, it says a hook must lead to an article that passes a certain level of grammar standards. A simple wikilink would suffice. Instead, in increasingly aggressive and tendentious tones, you choose to attack my competence with jabs like "I realize you are new here," and so forth. I'm not going to get pulled into the contagion of the latest drama you seem to be trying to engineer, and am simply pinging some other DYK regulars to make a final determination. I won't be checking this nom again. If you are truly here to build an encyclopedia, instead of crowd source a soap opera screenplay, you will agree to a similar disengagement. LavaBaron (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you even know how to end a post without a putdown? Yoninah (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Yoninah: Do we really have such strict rules for grammar here? Where is it mentioned? Thanks. --Mhhossein (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think expecting articles to be written in grammatically correct English to be adhering to "strict rules", it's just a regular expectation of articles bold-linked on the main page of Wikipedia. This article needs to be copyedited before it is featured in the DYK section. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

No. As per WP:WIADYK "Articles must meet the basic criteria set out on this page but do not have to be of very high quality." Unwritten rules, while they certainly have a place, never trump written policy. Since it appears you were summoned here by Yoninah, we should probably get fast resolution out of fairness to the nom and to keep this from becoming a WP:POINTy cattle call of everyone in Y's address book. I'm very concerned this could devolve into charged or xenophobic comments about non-native English speakers based on its current direction. ErrantX~ or Jakec - could you provide some input on whether an alleged unwritten policy trumps the specific community guideline that noms do "not have to be of very high quality?" I would like to quickly replace my but don't want to risk an edit war over it, since Yoninah has started editing my comments. LavaBaron (talk) 07:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I can see some minor problems with the prose, mostly odd comma usage. And to be honest, I've read some featured articles (my own included) which misuse commas badly. It seems readable enough to pass the quality margin. However; the article is a bit of a quote farm, has some potential SYNTH and POV issues and may even fail notability. It is now at AFD (putting this on hold anyway) and I suspect it will be validly deleted. LavaBaron; just calm it down a bit. DYK suffered from very poor quality material on the front page in recent years, and there has been a lot of effort (that I saw start in 2013, really) to improve that. There is a balance between rough, unfinished things and low quality. --Errant (chat!) 09:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Placing the proper icon for while the article is at AfD. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a huge gulf between "very high quality" and "written in broken English". This is English language WIkipedia, and as such we should use the English language, not a corrupted, pidgin version, for that try Simple English Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You might have a point (although I am not sure I agree in this case). But can I suggest that perhaps your point would be best served by not being unpleasant about it! For example, referring to Simple English wikipedia as a repository for "pidgin english" isn't very nice, helpful, or at all accurate. --Errant (chat!) 15:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hardly. What is needed as a minimum is grammatically correct English. This isn't an expectation of "very high quality" by any means, nowhere near it. And for what it's worth, I worked at Simple for several years, so you don't need to try to educate me on what it is and isn't about. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? "Broken English?" "Pidgin?" This conversation has become absolutely vile. LavaBaron (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The errors noted above and those which existed in the article when I read it earlier where absolutely examples of broken English. If you can't handle that, I'm sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
How about asking User:Hadi.anani to fix the alleged problems? Mhhossein (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. LavaBaron (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

As a general reminder - and this is not directed at anyone specifically - let's all please be mindful to present criticism of the hard work of other editors in a constructive and thoughtful manner that respects their contributions and makes an effort to avoid hurting others feelings. Let's all try to keep in mind this is a DYK discussion on a forum that draws in people of all national backgrounds and origins, not a Donald Trump campaign chatroom. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and as another general reminder, this is English Wikipedia, so articles featured on the main page should be written in English, not some corrupted form which makes little sense to most of our audience. After all, it's the fourth-most visited website in the universe, so we should at least adhere to minimum standards of readability. That doesn't equate to "very high quality", it is "minimum quality", which sadly this article didn't demonstrate when I first reviewed it. The horror and disappointment exhibited by LavaBaron should be re-directed into assisting with making the article of a suitable standard to be featured on the home page of one of the most popular websites ever. The horror and disappointment should not be a poor attempt at indignation and some veiled political correctness campaign where we just allow detritus to be promoted to the main page. Time to get with the programme, we want quality, not super high quality, but sufficient quality that it doesn't degrade Wikipedia's main page quality to a point where people would actually laugh at the poor English. Now then, either become part of the solution, or just bitch about the criticism. Your call. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you feel better after that? LavaBaron (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You're not helping yourself, but I guess you know that by now; I'm not one of the editors who are seeking your exclusion from the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Not here to help myself. I have no stake in this article, other than I really hate seeing a good editor turned into a punching bag. LavaBaron (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
And I hate to see sub-standard articles on the main page. It's nothing to do with the "good editor", it's to do with those who sanctioned the acceptance of the article. Time to work on that and quit the violins. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
As previously described, my feeling is your efforts are noble, but would be better served by seeking to achieve community consensus to change the guidelines for DYK from the status quo "articles must meet the basic criteria set out on this page but do not have to be of very high quality" rather than issue decrees. In any case, it's obviously not productive for me to continue this conversation given the rather surprising tone it's taken ("quit the violins," "pidgin English," "bitch," etc.). I'm sorry if I somehow upset you, it was not my intent. I wish you the very best. Your friend, LavaBaron (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not upset in the slightest. I was asked by another editor to comment on this nomination, and I have done so in good faith. That I would prefer to see actual English rather than the broken version I saw when I reviewed the article shouldn't be a surprise to anyone with any competence. If you actually have anything to constructively add rather than simple indignation, please do so, otherwise this discussion is over for me. A basic understanding of writing English is all that's required, yes it's not written explicitly in the DYK guidelines, but honestly, if you need that to be written down, you need more assistance than I will ever have time for here. Good luck with your quest in downgrading the DYK section even further than it already stands, for what it's worth I will always object and remove the kind of "quality" from queues and the main page, like that which was added here, so if you don't like it, deal with it or better, fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Got it - thanks! (Question - since this is phrased as a response to my comment, would you mind properly threading it so we can keep an orderly progress of discussion for the benefit of new editors who might like to join?) LavaBaron (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello. I thank you all for commenting on this article. Thanks to LavaBaron's copy-editing the article is better written now. Hadi (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hadi - it really was a very well written article. The problems were extremely minor. I have a few more corrections to make and then we just need to wait for the deletion nomination to fail and I'll re-approve this. Keep up the good work! LavaBaron (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@LavaBaron: The article is kept! Mhhossein (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Mhhossein - it appears the editor who AfD'ed it immediately merged it into another article after the AfD failed. I'm not sure what we're supposed to do in this case. I'll ask in discussion. LavaBaron (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have finished copyediting this article which, I believe, has removed the minor structural issues that were the only thing holding this from passing. Editing articles I didn't write is not, frankly, my forte so I am happy to re-review, if someone notices I missed something. Please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I do appreciate your good work. Hadi (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I put a note on the talk page about the page title. If this is not an official designation, should the word "coalition" be lowercased? Also, the page is an orphan – no other articles link to it. Yoninah (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, article is long enough with over 6,000 characters, was new enough when nominated. QPQ done. However there are some issues of close paraphrasing. For example from this website, copied content can be seen in red. Some quotes are taken from this website, [1], that can be written in own words. But overall article is ok, after fixing some minor issues article will be good to go. --Human3015TALK  06:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Issues related to close paraphrasing now has been fixed. [2], [3]. Good to go.--Human3015TALK  10:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Russia-Syria-Iran-Iraq_Coalition&oldid=692566282"