Template:Did you know nominations/2019 Saudi Arabia mass execution

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) 05:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

2019 Saudi Arabia mass execution

edit
  • ... that on 23 April 2019 Saudi Arabia beheaded 37 convicted civilians, most of whose confessions were obtained under torture or written by their torturers? Sources: "According to the ESOHR's documentation, at least 21 people executed by Saudi Arabia today said in court that their statements were extracted under duress and torture" European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights; "Many said they were totally innocent, that their confessions had been written by the same people who had tortured them." CNN
    • ALT1:... that on 23 April 2019 Saudi Arabia beheaded 37 convicted civilians whose confessions were mostly obtained under torture or written by their torturers? Sources: "According to the ESOHR's documentation, at least 21 people executed by Saudi Arabia today said in court that their statements were extracted under duress and torture" European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights; "Many said they were totally innocent, that their confessions had been written by the same people who had tortured them." CNN

Created by Mbazri (talk) and Boud (talk). Nominated by Boud (talk) at 20:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC).

As page creator, I also suggest 3 hooks:

--Mbazri (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I clarified the ALT labels - we now have the original and ALT1 to ALT5; I removed and added the definite article "the" for grammaticality; we could also have "their arrests", making ALT2 and ALT3 slightly longer. Boud (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Full review needed; above was hook suggestions by creators, not reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • , timescale checkY; length checkY; style checkY but the article is needed to be copy edited as well as I will select the best hook after finishing the copy edit, anyway please pay attention that the nominated hooks have to be in the article with an inline citation. Also, I am going to suggest to make bold the name of Executees in related section (in order to have readable section). Regards!Saff V. (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Probably {{em|name}} would be more appropriate for Wikipedia style for the Executee names than bold. I agree that some copyediting would be good. Boud (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
No different, the current version of the Executee section does not seem to be good and easy to read or have a perfect style, anyway please edit the section. In other hands, It is better to nominate the article here for copy editing. Regards! Saff V. (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I seem to have misinterpreted your phrase "I will select the best hook after finishing the copy edit" to mean that you planned to do some copyediting. Now it seems you are waiting for me or others to make some edits. Thank you for clarifying that you have withdrawn your suggestion for writing the executees' names in bold. I agree that that would not have been quite consistent with the WP:MOS. I have copyedited the Executees section and a few minor things that were not quite in standard MOS style. Please state concretely what style corrections you feel still need to be made to satisfy DYK standards. Thanks. Boud (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The copyediting issue has been addressed. Boud (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • For ALT3 and ALT4, I would propose replacing "three" by "four" minors, since the the ref "ESOHR_2019mass_execution" gives Munir al-Adam, Abdulkarim al-Hawaj, Salman Quraysh and Mujtaba al-Sweikat as minors at the time of their arrests. And to clarify: I don't see any copyediting problems or lack of inline citations justifying the hooks. All the concerns have been met as far as I can see. Boud (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for efforts. The article looks much better now. That was the good point that you mentioned, I checked the source, at least three is more compatible than four. All in all good to go with ALT3! Regards!Saff V. (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)