Template:Did you know nominations/Kony 2012

Kony 2012

 * ... that the viral video Kony 2012 has had tens of millions of page views?
 * Reviewed: Reviewed: Two of my three QPQ credits against Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Roth (baseball), Jason Krizan, Cody Martin (baseball) remain and I have one remaining refunded QPQ coming due to Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know. This uses one of the last refunded QPQ credit I have in the bank.

Created/expanded by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nom at 16:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we hold this one until April 20?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes the hook unique? Heck, in Indonesia Briptu Norman got to be bigger than Justin Bieber and bin Laden. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Tony, might you include the events of March 15 which landed the films maker, Jason Russell in the hospital for treatment of exhaustion? See the "Response to criticism" section of Invisible Children, Inc. Read the sources. Your hook could be "the maker of viral film Kony 2012 was hospitalized for exhaustion (etc) after the film received over 80 million hits." Just a thought. --Ishtar456 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You should present that idea on the article talk page. I am not the main editor of that aritcle anymore.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I struck out my suggestion-it is no good as it highlights a negative aspect of a living person (he ran around naked vandalizing cars and was detained by the police).--Ishtar456 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Viral videos, by definition, get millions of hits. Could we please have an alternative hook? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 11:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (ALT1)... that one goal of the viral video Kony 2012 is that there be a worldwide poster blitz?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT2... that the website for the viral video Kony 2012 crashed after the video became popular worldwide? -Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 22:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg With ALT2.  Rcsprinter  (chat)  19:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Is this just an approval of the hook, or is it a confirmation that the article passes length, expansion, NPOV, paraphrasing, and other checks? I thought about promoting this, but I couldn't tell what was reviewed so I went with another one that was clear. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The green tick means yes for everything, and I was noting which hook should be used.  Rcsprinter  (gas)  16:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Okay, thanks. It helps to specify what checks have been done in your review summary; overly terse leads to confusion, which is why I didn't pick up this hook yesterday. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to the article or nomination as such, but I'm very sceptical of reserving the posting at the mainpage to coincide with a pre-announced event. The mainpage posting thus becomes part, willingly or unwillingly, of the publicity stunt. That could opens up for unwiki-ish practices, for movie releases, partisan campaign, or, even worse, an attempt to propagate war (Kony 2012 falls in the latter category). --Soman (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See WT:Did you know for previous discussion of the timing request for this hook. --Orlady (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg - article contains multiple instances of too-close paraphrasing from a variety of sources. Some samples: "saying Kony represents only a fraction of the problems in their home country" vs "saying Kony represents only a fraction of the problems in Uganda"; "upset that the film devoted so much attention to the filmmakers and Kony while spending relatively little time on the conflict's victims" vs "upset the video devotes so much attention to the American filmmakers and Mr. Kony, and relatively little to the conflict's victims"; "suggesting that this kind of public attention would also have helped save more lives in Darfur and in the eastern DR Congo" vs "suggested that this kind of public attention would also have helped save more lives in Darfur and in Congo’s warring east"; "a temporary psychotic breakdown believed to have been brought on by the pressure of the success and criticism of the first film" vs "a  temporary psychotic breakdown believed to have been brought on by   the pressure of the success – and criticism – of the first film"; etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Named issues addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on quick spot-checking of two sources, there still appear to be of instances of close paraphrasing or copyvio. See, e.g., here and here.  The latter includes a 27-word passage from the Telegraph without quotation marks.  Perhaps this article should have a thorough review for such instances before it goes on the MainPage?  Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That tool is giving false positives by matching the title in the references section with text from the source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct in part. Not every "match" from Duplication Detector means there is a problem.  Things like the article title can create false positive.  But some of the matches do appear to be problematic.  For example, there is a 27-word passage from the The Daily Telegraph ("Kony and his diminishing troops many of them kidnapped child soldiers fled northern uganda six years ago and are now spread across the jungles of neighbouring countries") without attribution or quotation marks. Cbl62 (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is now not a copyvio. It may have some isolated instances, which are correctible. However, for an article that has about 100 citations, it is largely copyvio free. This is not more political grandstanding than legitimate concern. I have checked about 70 refs now and this article should go on the main page. Problems can be fixed as found since it is a work in progress.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have checked everything except the Part II section and it is decent now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done a complete copyvio check and it passes (allowing for my human error). Please get this puppy on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is getting annoying. This is why most of my good work is articles that I have created from scratch and added 90% of the content. When I try to clean up stuff done by other people, it is frustrating. I am now getting frustrated because I am finding no further issues. Meanwhile, it seems like Nikkimaria is sitting somewhere with a list of 25 copyvios checking them off as I find em. Any chance I have found everything yet?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am trying to review. I have done over 50 refs so far. Willl check these that you mention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Still issues here. Further examples: "efforts to arrest Joseph Kony must respect human rights" is verbatim from the source, "90 percent of people in the LRA affected areas in the Democratic Republic of the Congo still lived in fear of their safety" is nearly identical to "90 per cent of people in LRA areas of Congo still live in fear of their safety", etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You may have eced with my edits "efforts to arrest Joseph Kony must respect human rights" is already in quotes. I fixed the other one which I must have missed somehow.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Further examples: "he seeks to correct the false impression that Uganda is still in conflict" vs "seeks to correct the "false impression" that Uganda is in conflict"; "closes the film by urging supporters and critics to direct additional questions to the group’s Twitter account @invisible, using the hashtag" vs "finished by urging supporters and critics to direct additional questions to the group’s Twitter account @invisible, using the hashtag". This is the fourth check to find problems here; I would recommend slowing down and working to get things right, rather than trying to finish as soon as possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If the reference was preceded by a quotation mark, I did not check it further. I have to go back and check those, I guess.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That was a 2 hour goosechase. I don't see anything else. I am going to go have dinner and enjoy a netflix. I'll be watching hoping for a green light.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg In view of the discussion about multiple contributors continually changing the article, I'm wondering if this article is too unstable to be featured on the main page. --Orlady (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a crock. We put politicians that are 10 times as unstable on the main page. This comes no where near any instability borderline.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Instability is edit warring and not constructive editing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, if a page is prone to good-faith editing that adds content that is deemed to be a copyvio, leading someone to pull the hook off the main page, it's just as disruptive as an edit war. --Orlady (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous, Orlady, and you know it. The article is obviously going to be getting additions because of the Cover the Night event, which is the point. I'm sad that DYK regulars like you and Nikkimaria have devolved to little games like this. It's sad and pathetic and brings shame to the entire DYK process. Silver  seren C 02:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria's campaign to keep DYK free of close paraphrasing has been disruptive to me, personally, in connection with Wikipedia. I perceive that an inordinate percentage of my Wikipedia editing activity consists of watching prep areas and queues (not to mention main-page DYK) for hooks that have been removed for close paraphrasing or other copyvio issues, then undertaking urgent action to repair the queues by finding new hooks (ones that I hope won't be found to be problematic at the 11th hour) to replace the removed hooks: diff, diff, diff, diff, etc. Since I'm the one who moved Kony 2012 to the queue a couple of weeks ago, Tony's insistence that it must be saved for April 20th has been an additional source of last-minute disruption to my involvement here. After seeing the complaints here to the effect that (in my words) the nominator cannot be expected to keep the article free of potential copyvio issues due to the high level of editing activity by others, I anticipated a high probability that this hook would end up getting pulled from a queue or the main page. I, for one, do not intend to devote any more hours of my life dealing with issues related to whether or not a hook about an article that already averages 13,000 hits daily (that's over the last 30 days; yesterday's count was much higher) gets to appear on the main page for an 8-hour period. --Orlady (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to announce your stated indifference as "no longer objects".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

REVIEW REQUEST Would someone review this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Only issues I see remaining on the article is that there are a couple of uncited lines at the end of paragraphs. The first is the last line of Synopsis, the second is that first sentence of Reception, and the third is the end of the first paragraph of Negative. Miyagawa   (talk)  20:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reffed the first issue. The second issue is a summary statement for that section. It is essentially cited by all of the content in the subsections below it (positive and negative).  For lack of a better option, I removed the third.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Referencing issues have now been addressed so - finally! - this is good to go. I think ALT2 was proposed last time, and I would agree this is the best hook. Moswento (talk &#124; contribs) 09:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Last time it was promoted, the original hook was used. ALT2 assumes the reader knows how popular the hook is. Something like the following might be best:
 * ALT3... that the website for the viral video Kony 2012 crashed after the video started receiving tens of millions of page views?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I'm happy with that. Moswento (talk &#124; contribs) 13:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg As to alt 3 only. The previously approved alt 2 might be ok, but not alt 3.  As to alt 3, there is no indication in the article (or in the source material) that the kony2012 web site received "tens of millions of page views" before crashing.  To the contrary, the one and only source cited for the fact of the kony2012 web site crashing here in no way supports the assertion that tens of millions of views at kony2012 caused the site to crash.   (To clarify, the articles claims there were over 80 million views of the video on YouTube, but that is not the site that crashed.  As for the kony2012 web site (the one that crashed), the article merely says there was "other viewing" (without quantification) on the kony2012 site.) Cbl62 (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (ALT4)... that the website for the viral video Kony 2012 crashed after the video became popular worldwide and after the video had tens of millions of page views on various websites?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg As to alt 4 only. According to the source cited in the article, the kony2012 web site crashed on approximately March 6, i.e., very early in the process. There is no statement in the article and no source indicating that the video had tens of millions of views before the kony2012 web site crashed.  Accordingly, the alt 4 hook cannot be approved. However, it appears that alt 2 has already been approved.  Cbl62 (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (ALT5)... that the website for the viral video Kony 2012 crashed after the video became popular worldwide, but the video went on to have tens of millions of page views on various websites?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. not sure if I should use but or yet as the conjunction in ALT5.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, long discussion. - ALT5 - It's fine now, issues above have been addressed, references okay, article long enough. Good to go. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)