- 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 PFHLai (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Shirin Fozdar
edit- ... that women's rights activist Shirin Fozdar was instrumental in the creation of Singapore's Syariah Court and in the passage of the Women's Charter?
ALT1:... that Shirin Fozdar, best known for her women's rights advocacy in Singapore, once gave a speech in Ahmedabad at the behest of Mahatma Gandhi?- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dragon Age: Origins
Created by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk). Self-nominated at 23:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligiblity:
- Cited:
- ALT1 is cited, but the main hook is mentioned in the lede, where it is uncited - Interesting:
- Other problems: - Both hooks are over 140 characters long. This is well under 200 character maximum, but I suggest offering some shorter variants
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Please ping me when the hook citation has been resolved --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review BrownHairedGirl.
- I don't see any need to shorten the hooks. I've had eight DYK hooks run so far (not counting the ones where I was only the nominator), and they had lengths of 136, 132, 120, 135, 158 (two articles in hook), 165, 140, and 165. These hooks are about average, at least for me, and no one has ever had an issue with them being long before.
- As for the citations, the main lead is cited in the article, it's just broken into different pieces across two paragraphs.
- instrumental in the creation of Singapore's Syariah Court... is cited by source 6 ("Fozdar and the SWC campaigned intensely for a solution, and in 1955 a Syariah Court was set up to address the issue.") and more directly by source 5 ("The book Our Lives to Live: Putting a Woman's Face to Change in Singapore credits Fozdar, Che Zahara binte Noor Mohamed, and Khatijun Nissa Siraj as the main forces behind the court's formation.")
- ... and in the passage of the Women's Charter? is cited by sources 2, 3, and 6 (" Fozdar moved quickly, urging the party to pass a women's rights bill first proposed in 1954. The legislature took the issue up in 1960, using the 1954 proposal as a framework, and in 1961 the Women's Charter became law. The bill outlawed polygamy, provided women with legal recourse against husbands that conducted adultery or bigamy, and contained a number of other provisions that protected women and girls"). I added in another line, sourced to source 6, which is even more direct ("According to the Singapore Women's Hall of Fame, which inducted Fozdar in 2014, her activism was instrumental in the Charter's passage.").
- The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Squirrel Conspiracy.
- The hook length thing is not critical. As you rightly note, longer hooks are often used/ I just thought that it would be nice to offer a shorter hook as an alternative.
- However, the citation in the lede is needed. eligibility criteria say "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient." In my experience of DYK, that applies to the lede even when the citations are also present in the body of the article.
- You have the citations, and they check out; they just need to be applied to the lede. Please ping me when this is fixed ... then we will be good to go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl It most certainly does not apply to the lead. I never put citations in the leads of my articles, and it's never been an issue before. Only half of the articles in the set currently on the main page (carrot soup set) have citations in the lede, and only one of the articles in Queue 1 (Kvitsøy Lighthouse set) has a citation in the lede. The last sentences of the second and third paragraphs in the "Singapore" section are sufficient to meet the DKY process' citation requirements. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, Squirrel Conspiracy, but in my experience the citations in the lede are required, so I am not budging on that. Feel free to seek a third opinion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
- BrownHairedGirl It most certainly does not apply to the lead. I never put citations in the leads of my articles, and it's never been an issue before. Only half of the articles in the set currently on the main page (carrot soup set) have citations in the lede, and only one of the articles in Queue 1 (Kvitsøy Lighthouse set) has a citation in the lede. The last sentences of the second and third paragraphs in the "Singapore" section are sufficient to meet the DKY process' citation requirements. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's fair. BlueMoonset, Yoninah, and Oceanh are all highly active in the DYK process. Maybe one of them can weigh in? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Manual of Style has a section on this very topic, MOS:LEAD#Citations. Basically, if there is quoted material or material likely to be challenged, it should be cited in the lead even if cited in the body; if not, then citing it in the lead isn't necessary as the body cite will suffice. There has been occasional disagreement as to whether hook facts need to be cited in both places, and I'm unaware of a consensus on this particular issue, though my assumption has long been that as long as a hook fact is cited somewhere by the end of its sentence, that's sufficient, and my reviews have been based accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding so quickly BlueMoonset. Would you be willing to give this the tick or would you prefer that BrownHairedGirl do it? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Like I said, I'm not giving it the tick. But of course I don't claim any sort of veto, any other editor is free to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, while BrownHairedGirl had the lede sourcing issue with the original hook, she had no objections to ALT1. I come down in the opposite camp; while I think the original hook is adequately sourced with the citations in the article's body, I see no place in the article that mentions or sources ALT1's "best known for her women's rights advocacy in Singapore"—there's nothing really about how well known or famous she was in this area. On the other hand, the Hall of Fame source calls her "one of the most prominent advocates of women’s rights in Singapore during the 1950s", so something about her prominence could work, or you could use the first source's "she had become well known in Asia and internationally for her work in the cause of women's emancipation" to support adding wording close to the ALT1 hook in the article. "Best" is always difficult to assert without a source backing up that particular superlative. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, I'm actually going to strike that ALT. It was an interesting fact, but I was never in love with the idea of focusing on something other than the advocacy in Singapore, which is how the middle part wound up there. I'd much prefer to run with the original hook. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, while BrownHairedGirl had the lede sourcing issue with the original hook, she had no objections to ALT1. I come down in the opposite camp; while I think the original hook is adequately sourced with the citations in the article's body, I see no place in the article that mentions or sources ALT1's "best known for her women's rights advocacy in Singapore"—there's nothing really about how well known or famous she was in this area. On the other hand, the Hall of Fame source calls her "one of the most prominent advocates of women’s rights in Singapore during the 1950s", so something about her prominence could work, or you could use the first source's "she had become well known in Asia and internationally for her work in the cause of women's emancipation" to support adding wording close to the ALT1 hook in the article. "Best" is always difficult to assert without a source backing up that particular superlative. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Like I said, I'm not giving it the tick. But of course I don't claim any sort of veto, any other editor is free to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding so quickly BlueMoonset. Would you be willing to give this the tick or would you prefer that BrownHairedGirl do it? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- The Manual of Style has a section on this very topic, MOS:LEAD#Citations. Basically, if there is quoted material or material likely to be challenged, it should be cited in the lead even if cited in the body; if not, then citing it in the lead isn't necessary as the body cite will suffice. There has been occasional disagreement as to whether hook facts need to be cited in both places, and I'm unaware of a consensus on this particular issue, though my assumption has long been that as long as a hook fact is cited somewhere by the end of its sentence, that's sufficient, and my reviews have been based accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
(←) BlueMoonset, could you please weigh in on the remaining hook? If it's not ready, what needs to be done? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
A fresh review is needed, either by BM or by someone else. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
