Template:Did you know nominations/Arabization of the Jordanian Army command


 * 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 Alex ShihTalk 19:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Arabization of the Jordanian Army command

 * ... that Jordan holds an annual celebration on 1 March for the 1956 Arabization of the Jordanian Army command?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mohiuddin Bava

Created by Makeandtoss (talk). Self-nominated at 00:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC).


 * Fixed issues you brought up.. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg. I just started checking the article, and found that in the first sentence of the "background section", two of the facts asserted were not supported by the ref provided.  I tagged those two errors,, and gave up after that; if even the first sentence still has two basic referencing errors, then there is no reason to expect that due diligence has been replied to the rest of the article.
 * So I have marked this nomination as rejected, because the article clearly still needs a lot more work. You may wish to consider seeking help from a third party to correct the referencing issues. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I copied that paragraph from another article without checking the references provided, I removed them as they are over detailed. The rest is correctly sourced, sorry if this left a bad impression about the state of the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Makeandtoss, but I have had enough. I am not reviewing it again.
 * I spent over an hour reviewing your initial submission and tagging some of the forest of referencing errors, which were not just nuances or points of interpretation: they were refs which came nowhere near mentioning the facts asserted.  I think I was very generous not to just reject the article outright.
 * When the revised version had glaring errors at the start, that was my limit.
 * If another editor wants to do a further review, they are of course free to do so. But on the basis of what I have seen so far, I recommend that they set aside a significant amount of time to check the sourcing very carefully. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I just double checked the entire article, I added another source that is more condensed. Thank you for your efforts, I can understand if you still don't wish to continue the review. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Taking over per request. Have gone through the "Background" and "Arabization" sections, will get to the rest later today or tomorrow. In addition to the "not in citation given" that I've added, two minor issues: 22 October 1920 is not supported (1920 is in the citation, but not 22 October), and the book Lion of Jordan links to books.google.jo. Can you change that to books.google.com? --Usernameunique (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * @Usernameunique: you seem to be doing a thorough job, but as a significant contributor to the article (or at least to its referencing), are you sure that it is appropriate for you to be the reviewer? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the issues have now been identified, while I've fixed some of them (mostly correcting the page numbers). Please fix the remaining ones and then I'll take another look.
 * Yep, I do. I made a couple drive-by edits to the references after seeing this nomination floundering, and was then asked to take it over after you quit. Those initial edits seem to be what you refer to in calling me "a significant contributor to the article (or at least to its referencing)." I'd note that you also previously said that "I recommend that [another editor] set aside a significant amount of time to check the sourcing very carefully," which raises the risk of you criticizing me for doing what you suggested be done. I'm sure that's not your intent, however, and hopefully this addresses your concerns. Best, --Usernameunique (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I appeared to be criticising you for doing what I suggested. My intention was to suggest that another reviewer was needed, which I assume would not be a contributor. If the reviewer starts fixing the probs themselves, then at some point they become more of a contributor.  There is no bright line, but I saw ten edits by you after my initial review, and a further 25 edits after my brief second review, so I thought I'd raise the point.
 * The sourcing did need a lot of work, and I'm sure you have done a great job on it. I just wonder about the separation of roles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The royal decree part is not available in source literally, but it is the way the King of Jordan exercises his executive powers. Would you want me to find a source that mentions it explicitly or would you want me to remove it?Makeandtoss (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The royal decree part is not available in source literally, but it is the way the King of Jordan exercises his executive powers. Would you want me to find a source that mentions it explicitly or would you want me to remove it?Makeandtoss (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries, apologies if I came off somewhat bluntly myself. I honestly don't think there is an issue, as all of my edits are in response to randomly seeing the Arabization of the Jordanian Army command on the DKY nominations page, none have been content driven (i.e., they are for sourcing, wording, and grammar only), and I have no investment in the page other than being willing to review it and make it better; indeed, the initial intent with my edits was just to clean up the citations to make it easier for you and to vet and correct, and personally I knew nothing about the subject matter until reading the WP article and attendant sources. Finally, the DYK rules specifically note that "reviewing [an article] refers specifically to the process by which a nominated hook and the associated article(s) are evaluated, improved, and eventually either rejected as irreparably unusable or approved" (emphasis added). Hopefully that fuller response clears up any remaining concerns.

Back to the article: I read over it a final time, and see only two minor issues. First is the "royal decree" part, which seems reasonable to accept on face with Makeandtoss's explanation. Second is the date of 22 October 1920, which is still not supported (the year 1920 is in the source, but the day and month is not). , can you either find a source which says 22 October, or remove 22 October and just say 1920?

If that's done, and barring any objections from, I would mark the nomination as ready. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Done and  thank you for your efforts and for being patient. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry we got our wires crossed there. I was perhaps unwise to make any further comment after withdrawing, but am glad that you feel all is OK.
 * Since I have not reviewed the latest revisions to the article, I don't think I should express any view either way on your conclusions. I placed myself out of the loop, so I should shaddup and not get in the way.
 * Best wishes, -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks guys---changed it to approved. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)