Template:Did you know nominations/Youth in South Africa

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 22:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

Youth in South Africa

(

)

~~... that 70% of unemployed people in South Africa are between the ages of 15 and 24?~~

Created by Macmaclee (talk). Nominated by Prof.Vandegrift (talk) at 05:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC).

Long enough, new enough (barely), AGF on sources, hook appears to be cited, good to go. Zappa (5–7)Mati 23:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lead has a tag. This article should also be reviewed closely for accuracy and scope. Yoninah (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I am working with the editor to remove the tag. The article has been reviewed by four reviewers for quality of sources. The scope, we believe, is appropriate, and is related in scope to other articles written for the Drake University course Global Youth Studies. Thanks!Prof.Vandegrift (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Yoninah:. The student corrected the concerns. Thank you. Prof.Vandegrift (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The page has undergone additional editing, but there are some lingering issues. Since articles stay on Wikipedia forever, we avoid using words like "current" and "recent" and always put years on statistics. Thus, this first statistic might begin, "As of 2010," and the 70% statistic might begin, "As of 2011," or whatever the date is. Regarding the hook, I don't see the fact sourced in the article. There is one source for the 70% figure for "youth" – which you defined in the lead as people aged 14 to 35 – and another that says "more than two-thirds" of the 15-24-year-olds.
My reference to "scope" was in regard to DYK policies. The article must be assessed in light of other "Youth in XYZ" on Wikipedia. I have looked at a few existing articles and believe that you have done a good job in terms of scope and neutrality of writing. As most sources are offline or behind paywalls, AGF on sources. Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yoninah, I have edited for the more timeless language - this is great feedback for future work I plan, thank you. The did you know combined two sentences from the article, but I have edited them. Please see the suggested revision. I appreciate your patience - this process has really improved the article! Prof.Vandegrift (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
ALT1: ~~... that more than two-thirds of Youth in South Africa are unemployed?~~ Prof.Vandegrift 23:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look at the page history in a minute. FYI, the posts on a DYK nomination template should be in chronological order. If you wish to change a hook, you should post it as "ALT1" (or whatever the next ALT number is) at the bottom of the template, rather than go back and edit the hook. That way, editors who get involved in approving and promoting the hook can see a clear history of the discussion. I've gone ahead and posted your ALT1 with the date and time stamp at the time you posted it. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize how much "timeless language" there was to fix! Thanks for going through it with a fine-tooth comb. As for your ALT1 hook, I think you need to qualify it the way you wrote it in the article, in the third sentence under Unemployment. A year should also be given. (If I reword it as ALT2, I won't be able to approve my own hook, so I'm asking you to reword it as ALT2.) Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Yoninah, I tried to make the Alt2 changes you suggested. Thanks for bearing with me. Have to go offline for a while now. Prof.Vandegrift (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that more than two-thirds of Youth in South Africa are unemployed according to a 2009 study? Prof.Vandegrift (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. On a DYK nomination, you should add new comments and ALTs at the bottom, not go back and edit previous comments and ALTs. I posted, numbered, and dated your new ALT for you, and restored ALT1. Yoninah (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your new suggestion. I struck the hooks we're not using. The only problem with ALT2 is that in the lead you defined "youth" as between 14 and 35. It would appear that the "more than two-thirds" figure then applies to those between the ages of 14 and 18 as well, although the source for the hook fact qualifies it as ages 18 to 35. I'm sure there's a way you can figure out how to write the hook so it aligns with the source. Alternatively, you may want to come up with a different hook. Personally, I think it's more hooky to write:
ALT3: ~~... that in South Africa, youth are defined as as those from ages 14 to 35?~~ Yoninah (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The only thing about this is that it's not very interesting as a hook (insert smiley emoticon here). It's true that youth are defined differently in different places, depending on the ages in which young people are able to transition into adult roles. When student editors and I work on the articles, I encourage them to look at a country's youth policy for the definition of age. The statistics on unemployment use a different age than the youth policy because the age of youth is defined by consensus and data availability than a definitive age of consent. What if we pull a different statistic:

ALT4: ~~... that the HIV rate for youth in South Africa ages 15 to 19 is five times higher for girls than for boys?~~
Might that work? Thank you, I will check back tomorrow! Prof.Vandegrift (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that works. I tweaked the link in the hook. However, 5.2% is not 5 times higher than 1.2% – it's "more than 4 times". Also, the hook fact needs an inline cite right after the sentence in which it appears. Yoninah (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

ALT5:... that the HIV rate for youth in South Africa ages 15 to 19 is more than four times higher for girls than for boys?
I edited the hook fact in article with the correct inline citation. I am very grateful for your patience! Thanks for your mentorship.Prof.Vandegrift (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, all issues addressed. Article is new enough, long enough, well referenced. As most sources are offline or behind paywalls, AGF on sources. ALT5 hook is hooky and hook ref is AGF and cited inline. ALT5 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "South African policy has translated into practice; many community development and HIV/AIDS interventions have been launched to curb the epidemic and increase youth participation. Despite this, a substantial reduction in HIV prevalence among young people has not been achieved" with "Policy rhetoric in South Africa has been translated into practice, with numerous interventions for HIV/AIDS and community development seeking to promote young people's participation. However, these comprehensive policies and interventions have not led to a substantial reduction in HIV prevalence among young people". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I see what you mean. I have contacted the author. I fixed a couple, but doing all the review is out of my capabilities. I AGF because she did closely cite them. I hope we can get it resolved. I think the nomination unfortunately has to be withdrawn. BTW, I am going to work with students much, much more on the issue of paraphrasing for the next time I teach this class [[1]]. I just made the revisions today to the page to add in the COPYVIO stuff. Thanks again Prof.Vandegrift (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid there are still areas of concern - compare for example "Secondary school enrollment has increased for disadvantaged groups. Despite this, few gains have been made in decreasing the number of young people with little or no education. Race and gender inequalities influence who continues to higher levels of education" with "secondary school enrolment has increased for disadvantaged groups, little advancement has been made in reducing the number of young people with little or no education...race and gender inequalities determine who continues to higher levels of education". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It has been two weeks without any response from either nominator or creator, so I'm marking this nomination for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)