Template:Did you know nominations/Bahrain–United Kingdom relations
- 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) 08:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Bahrain–United Kingdom relations
edit... that although Bahrain had effectively been a British Protectorate since 1880, British authorities refused to declare it so in the early 1900s?
- Reviewed: General Military Academy
5x expanded by Mohamed CJ (talk). Self nominated at 11:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC).
- The hook isn't supported by citations immediately after the claims in the article, and the article doesn't say that the British authorities "refused to declare it so", just that they did not publicly acknowledge its status as a protectorate (a situation that had not changed since the 1880s). Expansion fivefold is OK, age is OK, but I haven't checked the sources for plagiarism. Belle (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. As far as I can see, the hook is directly supported in the section "Bahrain Order in Council and WWI". I have now directly supported it in the previous section as well. As for "refused", I thought it was covered by the Foreign Office refusing to use "strict terms" to define the status of Bahrain. Anyway, I'll change it to "did not admit" (as one British Official once said [1]). How about ALT1
... that although Bahrain had effectively been a British Protectorate between 1880 and 1913, British authorities did not publicly admit so back then?Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- The rule is that the hook "fact" is supported by an inline citation directly following it. For this hook you have to collate facts from different places in the article. I don't think the rule is one of the better DYK criteria but as it stands you'd be better off trying something else (it is hard to phrase this fact nicely anyway). What about:
- ALT2: "... that, in 1861, Britain agreed to protect Bahrain as long as its ruler did not in engage in the "prosecution of war, piracy and slavery at sea"? "
- (you'd need to move one of the citations to the end of that sentence in the article to comply with the rule). Belle (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the hook. Citation moved accordingly. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. As far as I can see, the hook is directly supported in the section "Bahrain Order in Council and WWI". I have now directly supported it in the previous section as well. As for "refused", I thought it was covered by the Foreign Office refusing to use "strict terms" to define the status of Bahrain. Anyway, I'll change it to "did not admit" (as one British Official once said [1]). How about ALT1
Full review needed now that hook is set. (Note: changed second of two ALT1s to ALT2 for clarity.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Only major thing that sticks out to me is that the In 2004, bilateral trade between the countries was worth £230 million
is unsourced. Normally, I wouldn't jump on this, but as its the only content for the section, a source would be appropriate here, or just removing it for now. 5x expansion size and date requirements check out. Edits since the last review have not been substantial (I've made a few edits for phrasing and MOS corrections). For the sources that are available online (like the Almahood paper), I've checked for cases of close paraphrasing and found nothing concerning. The hook's length is fine and is cited to specific page reference in the Khuri publication (looks like a textbook), so I'm inclined to AGF on this one. The quotation is interesting-- not very contractual language there for an agreement! The content otherwise reads neutrally and appropriate citations are provided throughout the article. As long as something can be done about the trade section, I think this is ready to go. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The editor appears to be semi-retired at the moment, so for the sake of completing this review, I've identified an appropriate source for the section I discussed above and added it into the article. Nomination is good to go. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
