Template:Did you know nominations/Family honor

Family honor

 * ... that family honor can lead to honor killing?


 * Comment: This is a good start of an article from an educational assignment. I realize it should've been nominated last week (for nomination edit only, the expansion times fits this section timeframe); I hope the reviewer will take into consideration the fact that its creators are three newbie editors who have no experience with DYK, and who have within just weeks of creating an account provided us with an article that is quite close to being eligible. Please try to offer them as much suggestions as possible, and I am sure they'll try their best to make the article fully eligible for exposure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Leishanda G. (talk), Rojast07 (talk), Esery (talk). Nominated by Piotrus (talk) at 17:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Entire article is loosely based on one book (ISBN 978-0-8308-1572-2). The hook itself is too broad and needs some tweaking. It needs more citations and references especially for the DYK fact, currently the hook itself has a cite needed tag. Good start though. --TitanOne (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol voting keep.svg - three newbie editors, pretty good article. Hook may need tweaking, but lets make the default that we are going to put this on the main page. If one experienced editor cannot get three newbies working together and supported (I hope) by the DYK project onto the main page then we have a problem. Victuallers (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

- I realize that these are newbie editors, but plagiarism is not acceptable content for the main page. Compare for example: "Honor is a dynamic and relational concept. An individual can think of himself or herself as honorable based on his or her belief that he or she embodies the qualifications that a group values as "honorable"" (article); "Honor is a dynamic and relational concept. On the one hand, an individual can think of himself or herself as honorable based on his or her conviction that he or she has embodied those actions and qualities that the group values as "honorable."" Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also note that this is an example only, and that the whole article will have to be checked and quite possibly scrubbed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly, and seeing as I stressed the plagiarism as a no-no for the students, they have no excuses. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 04:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a great pity as obviously I feel we should make newbies welcome. Hopefully they have learnt and will return with a less impressive (but more original) contribution and get full credit for their work Victuallers (talk) 10:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been some attempt from the students to address the issue, see this, although I am not seeing any responses from the student who plagiarised (here, at Talk:Family_honor, or even in my mailbox), although another is trying to help . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 15:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for a re-review. As far as I can tell, plagiarism issues have been resolved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Sorry, but that's a no based on the many, many issue tags. "Not in reference given" "Page number needed" etc. If the article doesn't pass WP:V then it shouldn't be on the MP. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree those issues should be resolved before the front page exposure. They've been tagged for several days already... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 07:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All references except one is fixed. The one that still has a tag attached is a website "Julian Marriage Laws" which needs a date for the citation. Even though we searched the entire source, we cannot determine the exact date for the article, thus we can't provide the date. If this is a problem I can delete the reference and the sentence it refers to. Thanks in advance for your suggestions. Esery (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)