Template:Did you know nominations/Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Uthman

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: rejected by Jolly Ω Janner 07:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Article was in need of copyedit

Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Uthman

(

)

... that after the death of the first deputy of Muhammad al-Mahdi, his son, Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Uthman was appointed as the second deputy?

ALT1:... that Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Uthman remained the Muhammad al-Mahdi's deputy, as the his second deputy, for almost fifty years and died in the year 304 AH?

5x expanded by Homiho (talk). Self-nominated at 07:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC).

The article is long enough (2262 B). Hooks character count is within the legal limits. They cited immediately at the end of the sentences but you must find better source for ALT1. Please add citation for lead sentences. Also, copy edit the article. QPQ none required.Saff V. (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Notified nominator on their talk page. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No response from the author whatsoever, even though he was pinged on his talk page. by Maile66. This article has not been edited since February 22, so the original feedback of Saff V. has not been implemented, almost two weeks after it was posted here. It's time to close this.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 11:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to question the original review by User:Saff V. before closing. Are the problems only with the ALT1? If so, is the original hook okay to use? The normal protocol is to strike out the offending hook, as only one is needed per nomination. Additionally, leads do not require citations if its information is discussed with references later on in the article. While I'm neccessary stating the the original hook is okay nor that the lead has actually met this parameter, Saff may have covered this in the original review and therefore this nomination may well have passed ages ago... Jolly Ω Janner 03:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Saff V brought up fair points. This article really needed a copyedit, as he noted already on March 1. Since then, no work on the article has been done - the last edit was there was performed on February 22. Besides, ALT1 has incorrect grammar: we can't entertain that either.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 12:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)