Template:Did you know nominations/Pope Francis' visit to the Philippines


 * 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 G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Pope Francis' visit to the Philippines

 * ... that Filipino singer Jamie Rivera sang "We Are All God's Children", an official theme song for Pope Francis' visit to the Philippines?
 * ALT1:... that Pope Francis addressed corruption at his speech and privately visited street children at Manila Cathedral on the second day of his visit to the Philippines?
 * ALT2:... that Pope Francis' mass at Quirino Grandstand was attended by millions of people on the fourth day of his visit to the Philippines since Pope John Paul II's 1995 visit to the same venue at his World Youth Day?
 * ALT3:(see below)
 * ALT4:... that Pope Francis' mass at Quirino Grandstand was attended by millions of people on the fourth day of his visit to the Philippines?
 * Reviewed: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel
 * Comment: A failed-to-be ITN nomination

5x expanded by Hariboneagle927 (talk), Proxima Centauri (talk), Cleardell (talk), Renzoy16 (talk), JinJian (talk), and PatTag2659 (talk). Nominated by George Ho (talk) at 08:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg I'm only here to make the comment that this nomination was probably made a few hours too soon, before the pontif's visit had concluded. I don't think either of the hooks are up to scratch - ALT1 is okay but it is only saying what the official song of the visit was, ALT2 is simply a dry news report, ALT3 is confusingly long and makes little sense. News reports have been published in the last few hours saying that the crowds have been the largest ever for a Pope's visit, so I would suggest (1) the update is added to the article if it hasn't already (2) ALT3 goes along the lines of "......that Pope Francis (pictured) conducted a mass during his visit to the Philippines to a record-breaking 6 million people?" Sionk (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I need another reviewer because the above person came up ALT3.
 * ALT3:... that Pope Francis conducted a mass during his visit to the Philippines to a record-breaking six million people?
 * The above should be read more conveniently. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That reads plenty conveniently. The bigger problem is the photo has nothing to do with the trip and Sionk never did a review at all: s/he was just making notes. Anyway, gimme a minute. — Llywelyn II   00:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If the photo is irrelevant, why did I choose the photo of the Pope? George Ho (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to your intentions. Maybe you didn't notice that there are other photos of the pope from the actual event in question, maybe you preferred this one. Either way, it shouldn't be used. One of the ones from the actual event should. — Llywelyn II   01:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Philippine photos are too small to be featured at the Main Page. Perhaps use a cropped photo of Philippine event? --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't mind if no photo is used, but the one accompanying this article should be from the visit this article is about. Have completely removed former photo as issues unaddressed and no substitute provided. (Hooks emended.) — Llywelyn II   12:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) From this edit at 0800ish 5 days prior (4,518 elig. char.) > this one at 0800ish around time of submission (20,334 elig. char.) fails 5x. You're still looking at another 2,000ish characters. As the article currently completely omits the single 2nd-most notable aspect of this trip (see here), the "incidents" section could easily be expanded and placed properly in the timeline, and the Philippine press has many English-language sources, that shouldn't be too difficult. For seven days' expansion (as noted below), the article's 5x is fine. 2) Obviously otherwise long enough, despite Vandal:8878930f786u's repeated attempts to blank almost all of its content. 3) Article has minor MOS issues: no link to popemobile article despite repeated mentions (fixed) and mentions of "the popemobile" despite there having been three separate ones; the article has cites in the lead that could easily be moved to the main text; it buries the lead about why the trip was notable (hint: largest in history, man diapers) while laundry-listing St JP2's completely irrelevant itinerary (it's fine: just move it down); cannot think of any earthly reason we would need to know that the registration of an airplane completely unrelated to the pope himself is RP-C936whyisthishere; &c. Now, none of that has to get in the way here since overall the article is unbiased and poorly sourced, except

a) Your source for CIA involvement is a newspaper article whose treatment in its entirety reads "The Central Intelligence Agency and the Vatican have sent intelligence agents to the Philippines to evaluate the security situation ahead of Pope Francis’ visit here on Jan. 15 to 19, an unimpeachable source said Tuesday". I can't speak to exactly how tabloidy the Manila Standard Today normally is, but you should rephrase, find something better, or drop it. b) The grammar of much of the article now needs to be changed from the future to past tense (CIA... has also sent... to assess; will also volunteer...; &c.) which is pretty much a Must Do and c) the single-most important fact in the article (ALT3) is currently completely unsourced, either at your article or at the Quirino Grandstand article.

Of course, we could go with one of the other hooks, but we shouldn't. Mr/s Rivera seems almost entirely unnoteworthy even within the Philippines, let alone outside of them; ALT1 is two unrelated hooks and, even considered separately, suffer from lack of noteworthiness and iffy grammar (how much corruption occurred at his speech? where is the urchins' private residence within Manila Cathedral?); ALT4 is a blander version of ALT3 and just as unsourced. 4) Mr Ho doesn't seem to need a QPQ but GG Ho did one anyway. (Personally, for something that close to the cut off, I'd've given a head's up to the creator's talk page or used a username link (as at left) to draw her attention to the problem... but of course it's really on her as she should have checked if she met 5x before submission. [unintentional irony goes here].) 5) As above, the current pic shouldn't be used. Noteworthy enough for top slot, but should use a pic of the pope or crowd from the event itself. — Llywelyn II   01:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As you didn't notice, QPQ is now required for nomination of someone else's article. They set up a rule already; see WP:DYK. George Ho (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Followed the link but, no, nothing seems to be changed. Regardless of the creator, the nominator needs a QPQ if they have previously nominated 5 or more other articles. You may have done so; I was just noting that the search tool didn't find them and you fell under the exemption part of that link you provided. (And will continue to do so for your next 4 articles. Have fun!) — Llywelyn II   02:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 112 would help. --George Ho (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It would have, if you had read it, but you seem to have missed the part where nominators of whatever stripe fall under an exemption for their first 5 articles. In any case, thank you for having done it regardless. It's certainly welcome! — Llywelyn II   02:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already done more than five articles two years ago. George Ho (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Odd that it doesn't show up in the widget but, again, it doesn't matter since you did do the QPQ. — Llywelyn II   12:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I also think the page should be moved to Pope Francis' s visit to the Philippines, but that's obviously something to talk about on the article's talk page rather than here. — Llywelyn II   01:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahhh... Teach me to do first things first. This wasn't a failed ITN nomination. It was a successful ITN nomination. So... very noteworthy... the provided sources for the 6 million figure should be included... but it's not going to work for DYK. Sorry. — Llywelyn II   02:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're confusing Portal page with Main Page. It's not featured on the Main Page yet; see WP:in the news/Candidates. Also, the prior revision is 1,520 bytes. I bet you were not aware of the DYK rule changes. Also, five-day limit became the seven-day limit. George Ho (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I apparently am. Is there any way to actually verify what has previously been listed ITN? or are we dependent on whether people remember to put that banner item in the article's talk page? — Llywelyn II   02:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If "[Posted]" appears before the nomination header, then it's posted. If not, then it's not been posted yet. Also, the talk page doesn't have an ITN banner yet. --George Ho (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. For example, Portal:Current events/2015 January 26 currently has no notation whatsoever next to the entry on the Greek elections which is currently headlining ITN. That said, it's been long enough and I'll just assume the continuing lack of a talk-page banner here means it never did feature.

Ok, I see what you mean. You're talking about the candidate page. But there don't seem to be any links to any archives where someone could check the status of former nominations. We're back to just hoping someone bothered to include a banner on the (right) talk page. But if that's all we have, that's what we'll go with. — Llywelyn II   12:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, the archive box is not easy to locate; here you go: In_the_news. Click "hide", so the box will expand. Or go to In the news/Candidates/January 2015. --George Ho (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added the BBC source I identified above. Sionk (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Although it probably belongs in the lead more than JP2's itinerary, as noted above, that was the big thing. If the article wasn't ITN, it's G2G. — Llywelyn II   02:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Can't we use a hook that involves the man-diapers? – H T  D  04:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you trolling or something? There are no man-diapers in the article. Period. George Ho (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Howie that it's almost as interesting, but he's right that any hook involving the bediapered public security would require an ALT hook and in-article sourcing. — Llywelyn II   12:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Since it seems this has not featured on the front page edition of ITN, ALT3 is good to go. Nominator preferred not to run a topical photo from the article (emended hooks) but, if the promoter was curious, the logo is non-free but fair use; the pope's arrival at the airbase, handshake with the pres, & yellow-poncho pic are free since the "Malacanang Photo Bureau" is just the Philippine president's publically-funded photo corps; and (most importantly) the aerial shot of the mass in question (Q. Grandstand=Rizal Park) is credited to the Philippine Air Force and thus public domain. — Llywelyn II   12:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, if it's a mod who comes by, Talk:2015_Papal_visit_to_Sri_Lanka_and_the_Philippines is still a separate page that wasn't merged properly to Talk:Pope Francis' visit to the Philippines. Also, it really should be Pope Francis' s visit to the Philippines, as noted above. — Llywelyn II   12:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No need; I created one page as a redirect and tagged talk page as a redirect. --George Ho (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)