Template:Did you know nominations/Iran and Red and black colonization
- 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 Allen3 talk 11:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Iran and Red and Black Colonization
edit- ... that "Iran and Red and Black Colonization" was the title of the article published at Ettela'at newspaper to slander Ruhollah Khomeini as an Indian Sayyed?
- ALT1:... that the article "Iran and Red and Black Colonization" was published one week after Jimmy Carter's lecture recalling Iran as an Island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world?
Created by Saff V. (talk). Self-nominated at 08:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC).
Checks for creation time, length, and plagiarism check out. However, I think there should be a note on this one with the week timeline. While one paragraph has one date, the next paragraph has another. While this is okay, the reader has to figure out the dates themselves, and the hook is not more or less stated within the article. It might not be a bad idea to add the hook material to the intro, just to clarify what is there and have the hook make more sense. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Article created and moved on February 16, 2016 and nominated for DYK on 21 February. The size of the article is enough (4441 characters (748 words) "readable prose size"). Plagiarism checked out and was OK. Order of paragraphs modified. Also, vague parts modified and added more information to clear the subject.Saff V. (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Everything is good to go, as the above issue has been addressed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
. This article needs a very thorough rewrite before it is fit to be plaved on the main page. It is very confusingly written and in parts impossible to understand. Especially the "events" section is very poor, starting with things like "On 4 January 1978 , this article was put in the pocket sealed by Imperial Court and sent from Amir-Abbas Hoveyda, prime minister of that time to information minister Daryush Homayun to publishing it in the one of the newspaper. In other word, this article was prepared under in section of court minister Hoveyda." "Put in the pocket sealed by"? "Under in section of"? It continues in the same vein, with "The primary text of article was a pacific word, ", "Also, the Indian referred to love poem that he wrote when he was young and singed them by this title.", and so on. The first paragraph of that section seems to suggest the article was approved by the prime minister, while the second paragraph states "the regime's religious opponents published an article". After reading this article, it is absolutely not clear to me who ordered or approved this article, and with what intentions (one of the sources seems to suggest a "mole" planted it). Fram (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Fram Can you copy edit the article?Saff V. (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Fram, the Guild of Copy Editors has now edited the article. Are the edits sufficient to satisfy your objections? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- While the article is a lot better, it still is hugely confusing. To give but one example; "Prime Minister Amir-Abbas Hoveyda, who is thought to have written it" vs. "According to Bahman Baktiari, the main authors of the article were Daryush Homayun and Farhad Nikukhah, a low-ranking ministry official". The article still states " the regime's religious opponents published an article" but the remainder of the article seems to say that it was the regime, not its opponents, that published the article. When one actually reads the article as currently written, it is almost impossible to know who did what and why. Fram (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- The article needs to be fixed so it is understandable, and a QPQ needs to be provided, since the nominator has had more than five DYK nominations on the main page. These both need to be addressed soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
It has been a week, and the article has not yet been improved. Since it remains "hugely confusing", it does not qualify for DYK; I am marking the nomination for closure as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
