Template:Did you know nominations/Osmanoğlu and Kocabaş v. Switzerland


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Osmanoğlu and Kocabaş v. Switzerland

 * ... that in Osmanoğlu and Kocabaş v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights found that Muslim parents can not demand that their children be excepted from mixed-gender swimming lessons? Source: "The Strasbourg-based court ruled that Swiss authorities had not violated the right to freedom of religion by insisting that two Muslim parents send their daughters to mixed-sex swimming lessons." (The Guardian)
 * ALT1 (reviewer-suggested) ... that in Osmanoğlu and Kocabaş v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that compulsory mixed-gender swimming lessons in public school does not violate the Muslim family's freedom of religion?
 * ALT2 (reviewer-suggested) ... that the ruling in Osmanoğlu and Kocabaş v. Switzerland found that compulsory mixed-gender swimming lessons in public school does not violate the Muslim family's freedom of religion?
 * Reviewed: Elfego Hernán Monzón Aguirre

Created by Iselilja (talk). Self-nominated at 23:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg New enough and long enough (2134 B readable prose size). Written in a neutral manner, but I found some referencing issue - specific number needs inline citation and need page number for multipage source, but otherwise the article is well-sourced and I spot-checking some of them. I also feel that the article could really use some copyedit for grammar and wording, please improve it or ask someone with a good command of English to do so (e.g. via WP:GOCER). No copyvio issues found. Regarding the hook, could you restate it in the same way as the source? The source says that Swiss authorities are right to insist etc., not that the parents cannot demand. I verified that the QPQ is in order. HaEr48 (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Iselilja, HaEr48, where does this nomination stand? There were some edits to the article, but nothing has been posted here about progress in over a month, and the article has a "copyedit" template on it, meaning that it cannot be promoted so long as the template remains. Thank you for your response. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The nominator hasn't responded, but I did post a WP:GOCER request for an expert to copy edit it. After that's taken up (maybe in one or two weeks) it should look better and we'll see how this stand. HaEr48 (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * HaEr48, that sounds good, though it might take until mid-March, given the backlog there. I take it you didn't think that Yngvadottir's copyedit back on January 27 was sufficient? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * * Ah, I overlook 's copyedit. I read it again, and I believe the prose is more than decent enough now. I also requested a better restating of the hook. Since the nominator hasn't responded, I gave it a shot and added ALT1 above; does it look good to you? HaEr48 (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * HaEr48, ALT1 was 207 prose characters, which is above the absolute maximum of 200, so I had to strike it. (The original hook, by contrast, was 189 prose characters: on the long side, but within limits.) Do you want to try to craft a shorter ALT2? The article's prose seems decent to me as well. Have the referencing issues been settled? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Added a slightly shortened ALT2. Yes, the sourcing issue was resolved by updates on 18 January. If you agree with the hook, this is good to go now. HaEr48 (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ping, ? How does alt2 look? HaEr48 (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * HaEr48, I've been stumbling over "violating the Muslim family's freedom of religion", in particular "the Muslim family's", which I instinctively want to change to "a Muslim family's", though the ruling seems to go beyond the one family involved here. However, I think the following would be a better wording while keeping it about the same length (185 prose characters vs. 182):
 * ALT3: ... that the ruling in Osmanoğlu and Kocabaş v. Switzerland found that compulsory mixed-gender swimming lessons in public school does not violate the freedom of religion of Muslim families? —BlueMoonset (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Ah yes, I understand what you mean. I thought "the Muslim family's" can refer to "Osmanoğlu and Kocabaş", but I'm not a native speaker and yours makes sense too. Thanks HaEr48 (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)