Talk:De-Ba'athification

Amfarr21 From my perspective, the content looks really great.

1) I can see where there are too many footnotes -- the first paragraph has a footnote for each sentence (3 of which are the same #1). That seems a bit of overkill. Perhaps cutting those down especially for the intro which is supposed to be more of a summary might be good. I see a similar problem in some of the other sections--especially the orders. If each sentence footnotes to the same thing, then just put one footnote in for the whole section. No need to do the same one for each sentence. You can either put it at the outset of the section or at the end of the section (probably the later makes the most sense).

I don't really see why/how the entry is too long. GorillaWarfare -- thoughts on this? Would it make more sense to put the texts of the Orders that AmFarr21 summarizes in their entirety in WikiMedia and link to them?

Radavis147 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)RaDavis147

I believe Amfarr is planning on shortening some more. I agree, though, 81 kilobytes is excessive. WP:LENGTH states, "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style)." If I were to print this article, it would be 20+ pages long. I think that the Orders section especially needs to be summarized. Although it's very good that you took out many of the excerpts and shortened it, it's still lengthy and difficult to read. Perhaps doing away with the subsections and summarizing them all together would be a good way to accomplish this? That may well be a terrible idea, though, so I'll leave that up to you. The Impact section is also much too long. The subsections are probably wise, but are the sub-subsections really necessary? That too should be a focus when you're consolidating. I'd say try to get the article to under 50 KB if you can. I'd also say you might want to work on the wording of the article. It's well-written, but a lot of the words require a very advanced vocabulary (promulgated? concomitant?) to understand. Perhaps a quick review of the paragraph at WP:TONE would be useful.

One other thing. I see you've wikilinked a lot of the rest of the article. Great! However, you should note that it's generally only necessary to link the first appearance of the term. I noticed that, for example, Ahmad Chalabi is linked twice. Also, I think there are some redlinks that could be fixed. For example, I believe that "Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA)" could be wikilinked to Coalition Provisional Authority. "Potsdam Agreement of 1945" could be wikilinked to Potsdam Agreement. I assume you know that you can write [[Potsdam Agreement|Potsdam Agreement of 1945]] and it will show up in the text as Potsdam Agreement of 1945. This, if you notice, has the same text that you wanted, but links to the article. Hope that helps! — GorillaWarfare ^talk 00:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey GorillaWarfare- I just saw these tips you left after posting the article. I apologize for not looking earlier, but it didn't occur to me to look on the talk page of the article. I have these changes in mind now that article is posted, and will add them to the thoughts on how to make the article better that will come from the other readers and Wikipedians. Again, sorry I didn't see this before posting the article! Amfarr21 (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-routing "De-Ba'athification" from Ba'ath Party to "De-Ba'athification Policy"

Hey User:GorillaWarfare, I couldn't move the article last night under the name "De-Ba'athification" because that article already exists (even though it doesn't). "De-Ba'athification" re-routes to the Ba'ath Party article, but I was wondering if there was a way we could get "de-Ba'athification" to re-route to this article instead? Amfarr21 (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems you've already solved the problem! If you need more help let me know. If you want to reach me more quickly, you can either post on my talk page or leave me a whisperback ({{wb|Amfarr21}} there. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 17:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK

This article should be eligible for appearing on the main page as a "Did you know" entry, if it is nominated it soon; it is supposed to be nominated within 5 days of being created, and there's a bit of wiggle room up to 6 or 7 days usually.

The instructions for nominating it are at Template talk:Did you know. Basically, all you need to do is take this code:

{{subst:NewDYKnom| article= | hook=... that ? | status=new | author=  }}

and write the hook, a concise and interesting bit of info from the article beginning with "... that" and ending with a question mark. The info from the hook has to be present in the article and supported (in the article) with a citation. Someone will double-check to make sure the source says what it's claimed to say.

Once you've come up with a hook, fill in your username as the author and fill the title of the article, then add the above code, including your hook following the "hook=" part, to the top of the appropriate section for the day the article was started on the DYK template talk page. The code will produce an entry formatted like the others. After that, just keep an eye on the entry; if anyone brings up an issue with it, try to address it. I'll keep an eye out as well. If everything goes well, it will appear on the Main Page for several hours a few days from now.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sage Ross! Thank you for sending this info my way! I wanted to nominate it, but I didn't know how, or where. I checked with the page, and it looks like Fetchcomms has already put the article in the queue for 29 October. I assume I don't need to do any more other than follow the placement to see if there are any issues? Also, is there some way I will be notified if the article appears on the front page? Thanks again for the helpful info! Amfarr21 (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, cool! I didn't realize Fetchcomms had nominated it already. Anyhow, nice work; you shouldn't need to do anything else except what you describe. And yes, a bot will come by and leave message on your talk page and also add a box to this page once it hits the main page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

very thorough and comprehensive. some suggestions: perhaps you could expand on the lead for the article, adding why the de-bathification policy was controversial, a couple sentences on the Ba'th party, why the policy was rescinded, etc.. I would also put the section describing the goal of the policy more in the beginning of the article. But overall, great job! Ayoung0131 (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on De-Ba'athification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511171122/http://www.ictj.org/images/content/7/6/764.pdf to http://www.ictj.org/images/content/7/6/764.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104005553/http://parliament.iq/ to http://www.parliament.iq/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)