Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Keilana (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Saint-Quentin-Fallavier attack

edit
(
)
  • ALT1:... that the decapitated victim of the attack on an Air Products factory in Saint-Quentin-Fallavier was a suspect's former company manager?
  • ALT2:... that before the incident, a suspect of the attack on an Air Products factory in Saint-Quentin-Fallavier converted to Islam during prison?
  • ALT3:... that a beheaded victim of the attack on an Air Products factory in Saint-Quentin-Fallavier was a suspect's former boss?
  • Reviewed: Herbert Strong (golfer)
  • Comment: The article has problems. People try to connect this event to other tragic events as if it's related to Ramadan. Also, it's nominated for ITN, but the nomination is failing. I have trouble trying to write a decent hook, so I welcome your suggested hooks. Moreover, there were more than three authors, so let me know whether I missed another prominent author.

Created by Gareth E Kegg (talk), Aronzak (talk), and Alvaro B. (talk). Nominated by George Ho (talk) at 10:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

  • Oppose until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Ramadan attacks is sorted out. Users continue to discuss "Ramadan" when this has nothing whatsoever to do with Ramadan - and everything to do with ISIS having a one-year anniversary of declaring themselves a state. The word "Ramadan" should not be included in the "part of" section - it links the widespread Muslim practice to terrorism, which I think is POV when "26 June 2015 attacks" could be used. Wait until the AFD is done and there is consensus on whether attacks are related. -- Aronzak (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Aronzak, you don't have to vote. DYK doesn't do voting process, although some users do vote on any nomination. George Ho (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The result of the 2015 Ramadan attacks AfD was "keep", so the nomination can go forward. However, the article needs a copyedit before it can be considered, as the prose is problematic in a number of places throughout, especially the "Reactions" section. Also the facts are confusing: if Salhi had been fired, then his victim was his former manager, since there was no longer an active work relationship involved. (This also affects ALT1, which needs a copyedit as well.) Pronoun usage makes who is being referred to sometimes unclear. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • George Ho, both article and hook needed copyediting—issues still remain for the former after another editor took a crack—so just doing one doesn't solve the main problem. The Attack section still uses "boss", which remains a problem since the perpetrator had been fired, and there are at least two bare URLs in the reference section, which is not allowed under DYK rules. It's been a week; more work needs to be done soon if you wish to pursue this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Added ALTs 2 and 3. I also added "former" before "boss". What else needs copy editing? George Ho (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Prose looks decent enough to me. Not FA quality, but better than some of what we've posted. Could still use another review. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
In other words, you forgot to add the red icon, which I add for you. George Ho (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Sheesh George Ho, you forget the satire signage, or the smiley face. (Try more collegiality.) I've looked at the lead and yes, it needs rewriting. There's a cn tag at the end of a paragraph. I removed a chunk of unencyclopedic stuff. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I reverted your removal of "Reactions" section. I don't know why you deemed it unencyclopedic, but Reactions are everywhere... almost. Try Village pump if you oppose Reactions or anything like that. George Ho (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
You can be disruptive here, or you can defend your re-insertion of trivia on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
What are you trying to do, wreck my nomination? Your removal is uncalled for. George Ho (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
No, I am trying to write an encyclopedia. a. You're doing a pretty good job of wrecking it yourself; b. all countries except the IS caliphate in the world have the exact same response to such events, and therefore these responses are trite; c. I've seen plenty of articles to know a thing or two. George, seriously, if you want to save this nomination, improve the article. Start by rewriting the lead. I'd help you, but you're not inviting collegial assistance. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
And now, after your latest revert, you can add that the article is unstable. By all means, don't fix the real problems. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Since DYK only requires a minimum of 1500 prose characters, the article is more than long enough without a Reactions section. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I copy edited the lede. However, it already summarized the whole article. In fact, there haven't been updates of investigation since the suspects were arrested. What about trials? George Ho (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I don't see what's wrong with the lede. Shall I remove the tag? George Ho (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
George, you can ask Chris Woodrich, who added the tag to the lede, whether the issues he saw have been addressed such that he's willing to remove it, but don't do it yourself. Also, your addition of the undue tag to the Reactions section stops this in its tracks; a DYK shouldn't run as long as it's there, since it's a major issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- You haven't introduced the subject in an encyclopedic manner, but rather almost as a news story. This should be framed in a historical perspective. The lead doesn't even name the attacks, nor are the words Saint-Quentin-Fallavier in the lead. Check for compliance with WP:LEDE. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Given the issues identified and outstanding, this clearly isn't ready for a new reviewer at this time. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I agree. Just passing by, I often find myself having to choose one of two things: edit the article and possibly come up with an alternative lead, for instance, or review and move the thing along. In this case, it clearly cannot be moved along (and if George Ho can't see what is wrong with the lead (and I agree with Chris), then it won't be done anytime soon. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I've addressed some of the above issues. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    Great job, Gareth E Kegg. Please have a look at the hooks and see what you think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • They're both pretty weak in my opinion. I really can't think of any hook that wouldn't trivialize such a recent event, sorry. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I welcome your copyedited ALTs. George Ho (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the new hook is fine, sorry to be so pedantic. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • . Long enough, new enough, paragraphs are verified, hook is OK, no obvious signs of plagiarism. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Saint-Quentin-Fallavier_attack&oldid=677417895"