Talk:This Arab Is Queer

Did you know nomination

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 BorgQueen (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that This Arab Is Queer is considered a groundbreaking LGBTQ+ anthology that features 18 queer Arab writers? Source: This Arab is Queer' Is a Groundbreaking New Antholog
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Benedict Thompson

Created by FuzzyMagma (talk). Self-nominated at 01:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/This Arab Is Queer; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Oppose promotion the article as it has far too much self-sourced content, and that would need to be resolved first. The proposed hook also reads as promotional and uninteresting to a broad audience. (t · c) buidhe 11:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

this is how articles about literary work is written. In an analytical framework that doesn’t require citation about the plot as its written in the book itself. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels. The hook is referenced but alternatives are welcomed FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I think the hook is interesting. And per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries of individual works, "Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." That said, the "Content" section is very long (much longer than the rest of the article put together), so I can understand Buidhe's concern. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: What about now? I have removed 50% of that section (if you dont include images captions) FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks more reasonable to me now – thanks. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Wouldn't the word "groundbreaking" in the proposed hook be considered a peacock term, at least as how the hook is currently written? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: even if it is quoted? the example given in MOS:PEACOCK seems to support quoted "peacocking" FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

We usually don't italicize stuff in the hook. And yes, even if it's quoted, care must be made to ensure that such words aren't written in Wikivoice, like they are currently. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: let me then think of alternatives then FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Long enough, new enough. All paragraphs requiring at least one reference do so. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. I propose either rewording the hook so that "groundbreaking", complete with quotes, is the last word of the hook, or taking out that part of the hook altogether (everything between "is" and "that" inclusive). And I would like to see a QPQ out of you, as you have more than five credits.--Launchballer 09:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Launchballer::

• ALT1 ... that This Arab Is Queer is an LGBTQ+ anthology that features 18 queer Arab writers from 11 Arab countries?

• And I will get few QPQ done ASAP. Have some issues fixing my laptop but will do it soon FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that the LGBTQ+ anthology This Arab Is Queer features eighteen queer Arab writers? --Launchballer 21:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• ALT2 Works for me, done with (but not closed) the QPQ ..FuzzyMagma (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• Alt2 approved --evrik ^(talk) 16:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

You removed alot!

@Buidhe your removed alot of text that is a good summary in one just edit. I took alot of time to put this summary together can you please return and recommend it to be trimmed rather than make such a swift change FuzzyMagma (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

FuzzyMagma Wikipedia needs to be based on secondary sources not the book itself. The summary section cannot be much larger than the other sections on publication history, reception, etc. that are based on secondary sources. There are other wikis that are more suitable to post extended book summaries. (t · c) buidhe 03:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe most books and films plot or plot summary sections does not have any references. This type of articles have an analytical framework that describes the book and its impact. see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels

And I based this one on that.

There an argument for making things shorter but not chopping half of the article. I would prefer to take out the summary not the text for each chapter FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe I pinged a capable editor who has experience in writing these can of articles for a 3O FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

From the guideline you quote: "400 to 700 words are usually sufficient for a full-length work, although very complex and lengthy novels may need a bit more". Non-fiction works may get a bit more leeway here, but your summary is 2518 words, and clearly needs reduction by more than half. (t · c) buidhe 11:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

For each section. As each section is separate individual. I don't want to just group such diverse range of stories into one as they are widely spread FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No, that's for the entire content of the book. A novel is often made of multiple sections but all have to be summarized within a reasonable word limit. Wikipedia is not Fandom. (t · c) buidhe 07:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to avoid repeating myself

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels " .. although very complex and lengthy novels may need a bit more" == " I don't want to just group such diverse range of stories into one as they are widely spread"

I will ignore the Fandom description as not to drag this to a personal discssuion.

Let's wait for someone who has expereince with such articles to wiegh in FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm here from Wikipedia:Third opinion. Buidhe is correct. 700 words should be more than sufficient. Anything more detailed belongs on another site. I am sorry to bear this news, FuzzyMagma. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Arbitrarily0 even with something as complicated as books? FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you both are right but I do not think any one can summarise such dense stories, while retian the substance ofthe book, to 700 words but have at it please if you disagree. Please dont just remove text like what @Buidhe did in this edit. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Arbitrarily0 can you also address the secondary sources problem raise by @Buidhe, becuase they made similar point in the Template:Did you know nominations/This Arab Is Queer FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The summary need not retain "the substance of the book"; it just needs to be short, and give a general idea of what the book contains. Maybe one story can be selected as a sample. It seems like there's sufficient secondary sourcing for a short article, but not an article of its present length. There is a lot of citations which date from before 2022 and which therefore could not be on the subject of this book. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Arbitrarily0 I added a link to what I mean by "substance" to avoid any necessary semantic discussions and elaborating a point that I assumed would be normally understood.

regarding the 2nd part, you did not address it, may protest against @Buidhe comment that it is not needed for the synopsis of a book to be referenced and I cited the appropriate section of the manual of style. the citation dated to before 2022 are for the background. I would appreciate if you take a proper look since you are here for a 3O FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I understand you well, but I stand by what I said. I'm not saying that pre-2022 citations can't be used for background; but I'm saying that for an article of this length, there are insufficient secondary sources about the book itself. Again, the "content" section needs to be cut down drastically. Until that happens, this article is not a good candidate for DYK. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I've shaved 50% of the content section (if you dont include images captions) FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Congrats!

Hi FuzzyMagma (talk) - Congrats for this great article. I see you had to do a lot of editing before it was acceptet. But the DYK nomination will draw a lot of attention to this underrepresented topic. Keep up the good work! Munfarid1 (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I know I always ask you this, but I truly appreciate your opinion. So do you think there is a hope for this article to be GA nominated? FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)