Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Disarmament of Libya

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Disarmament of Libya

edit
(
)

Created by Futurist110 (talk). Self nom at 03:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I now reviewed this DYK? nomination--Template:Did you know nominations/List of springs in Florida. Futurist110 (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Well referenced, no obvious or subtle copyright issues, and barring a few formatting errors here and there, it's pretty well written. Not bad, not bad at all. =) The only two concerns I have are with regards to the hook. First, the whole thing is bolded and linked to the article. My advice is to just link/bolden a portion of it; for the hook you've given, I'd recommend doing so for the following segment: "giving up his WMDs and nuclear weapons program in 2003". Second thing is that it might be a bit on the long side. This article and its subject are definitely worthy of DYK and you've got some good ideas going, but I wonder if maybe we should actually showcase another fact mentioned in the article.
Mind if I propose a new hook? Consider this one: "... that former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi offered to give up his weapons of mass destruction program as early as 1999?"
In any case, good work. I look forward to passing this relatively shortly. =) Kurtis (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. In regards to another hook, how about this:
Did you know? ... that when Libya gave up its nuclear weapons program in 2003, it was three to seven years away from nuclear weapons capability? Futurist110 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure, that'll work. Really, any fact from that article would probably be interesting to quite a few people. Good job! =) Kurtis (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I have returned this one from the queue as the hook strikes me as both misleading and unduly alarmist. Firstly, it states that Libya "was three to seven years away from nuclear weapons capability", but this is based on nothing more than a "gut feeling" expressed by someone in the provided source.[1] I also think it's a misleading hook because it implies Libya was close to a weapon, when the same source in fact states the opposite, that Libya's nuclear program was only in an "initial ... experimental" phase. The article itself also fails to state this fact clearly. So I think that, firstly, the article needs to state clearly that the program was still in its early stages, and secondly, a hook more accurately reflecting the facts be provided. Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I fixed this article now and as for the hook, would my initial hook about many Middle Easterners thinking that Gaddafi made a mistake by giving up his nuclear weapons program work? Futurist110 (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The changes to the article address my concerns there, thanks. With regard to the original hook, I don't think that is entirely accurate either. Might I suggest the following:
I like this hook the best. No offense, but this hook is the most interesting one of the available hook choices. Futurist110 (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • What about my recommendation above (i.e. about Gaddafi's offer being made as early as 1999)? Kurtis (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
You didn't formally propose it as an alt so it probably got overlooked. It's probably acceptable as a hook but I must admit I don't find it all that interesting. Regarding your note on my talk page - no, I think you have generally done a good job of reviewing the article. But some people have particular sensitivities to certain topics that aren't shared by everyone. It's no reflection on you that the hook got pulled, and yes hooks do regularly get pulled from the queue for all sorts of reasons. Gatoclass (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I think there are people who would be interested in that fact, actually — or maybe not, it's hard to gauge based on a select few opinions. I'll make it an official alternative proposal. And thanks for your response to my question on your talk page, although I would have preferred if the more personalized aspects of it were left there. But, no harm done. =) Kurtis (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
No offense, Kurtis, but I like the ALT2 hook better. Futurist110 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
That's fine, I'm not offended at all. Kurtis (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This article has been fully reviewed by Kurtis and my own concerns have been addressed, it now only needs someone to approve one or both of the remaining hooks (ALTs 2 and 3). Gatoclass (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I already said that I approve of hook ALT2 and that I like hook ALT2 the most. Futurist110 (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's my hook and so naturally I prefer it myself :) However, I am not permitted to approve my own hooks and as the creator of the article, you can't approve of hooks relating to this article either. It has to be done by an independent party. Gatoclass (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Wait... doesn't that mean I can approve this hook if I so desired? Kurtis (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think that you can, Kurtis. Futurist110 (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's settled, then. Disarmament of Libya is cleared for DYK, and ALT2 shall be the hook. Kurtis (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Disarmament_of_Libya&oldid=828968847"