Template:Did you know nominations/1969 Curaçao uprising
The following is an archived discussion of 1969 Curaçao uprising's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC).
1969 Curaçao uprising
[edit]- ... that on May 30, 1969, thousands of oil workers rioted on the small, normally very tranquil Caribbean island of Curaçao, causing some $40 million in damage?
Created by Carabinieri (talk). Self nom at 15:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Using a video rather than an image is somewhat unorthodox, though animations have been used in the past. I'll leave it up to the reviewer or promoter to decide whether this is appropriate.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that using a video is unorthodox for a DYK. In this case, it's also unnecessary and doesn't help readers (of English articles) understand the topic. Therefore, I removed the video and the reference to it in the hook.
- Is this DYK missing a quid pro quo?
- The article is new, long enough, and neutral.
- Otherwise, the hook is almost good to go. The it's short enough, interesting, and mostly referenced in the article. Unfortunately, all of the references seem to be offline.
- Please reference the following sentence in this section, a fact from which is mentioned in the hook: "The total damage caused by the uprising was around 40 million US dollars."
- After that, the hook will be cleared for AGF promotion. - ʈucoxn\talk 00:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. I've been involved in DYK for a long time and have reviewed a large number of nominations. That fact is referenced. The NYT article "Strikers on Curacao Insist Regime Quit; Two Dead in Rioting" which is cited says: "The rioting by the strikers has caused damages estimated at $40-million in Curaçao, a Caribbean island 65 miles off the coast of Venezuela."--Carabinieri (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the above information. The source was not evident from the article. I fixed it for you. As far as I'm concerned, it's now ready to get promoted.
- After further examination, I see that you're an administrator... it might be useful to communicate to reviewers who aren't familiar with your username that you are a DYK admin, publish the DYKs, created 492 articles (takes a while to load), and have a ton of DYKs and reviews credited to you. Some of us don't know who you are and it's not evident that you're an admin. from your user/talk page. Thanks. - ʈucoxn\talk 06:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's quite a biography. I do hope, however, that my nominations can be judged without knowing all that. As to referencing issue: every specific fact doesn't necessarily need to be directly attributed to a single source. I don't think having two consecutive sentences with the same footnote really helps. It's clear from the footnotes that the fact comes from one of the two NYT articles and I think that's good enough.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't intend to step over the personal attack boundary but please be humble enough to take constructive criticism from another editor. Yes, your nominations can be judged without knowing your biography but someone (maybe you?) made a QPQ rule and it makes sense to follow it somehow, regardless of your admin. bit or the number of ribbons you've racked up.
- It looks like you didn't take any of my comments seriously: you did not add any notice that you're an admin to your user/talk page (i.e. Template:Administrator_topicon, or a statement at the top of your talk page), you didn't add your QPQ, and you reverted my edit to your article, (phrased intentionally because you're giving a strong impression of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles). (It's one footnote, how much do you really care?) This makes one wonder whether you're really looking for a DYK review or simply a rubber stamp. I'm not interested in pursuing any claims of WP:ADMINABUSE here, regardless of how clear I might think they are. That would be against the collaborative spirit of this whole project. Hopefully this little spat is enough to get you to at least put something after the
:*''Reviewed'':tag in your next DYK submission. V/R - ʈucoxn\talk 23:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)- I didn't feel attacked by your comments and if I gave that impression, I apologize. I've always said that the QPQ rule is incredibly silly and counterproductive, so I wasn't involved in introducing it, but that's not the point. By mentioning that I've contributed to DYK for a long time, I was just saying that you can take your pick of which review of mine you can consider as the QPQ for this nomination. The reason I reverted your edit is because I don't think it improves the quality of the article, that's all. I've given my reasons. If you think the article would be improved by this additional footnote, please cite your reasons and I would be more than happy to discuss this. I have always enjoyed having other editors contribute to articles I started. If you look at the history of this article you'll see that soon after I posted it, someone else made some changes that I thought really helped it along. Anyway, I don't see how I possibly abused my admin tools since I didn't use them even once in this whole discussion. I wasn't the one who brought up the fact that I'm an admin. I'm not going to add any kind of ugly infobox, to my user page, because, first, I don't have a user page and secondly, because I don't think there's any reason to. I might be wrong, but I think the only time I've used any admin tools within the last 12 months was to update DYK queues and everything associated with that. --Carabinieri (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand. Perhaps suggesting that this could be WP:ADMINABUSE was a bit heavy handed. - ʈucoxn\talk 23:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't feel attacked by your comments and if I gave that impression, I apologize. I've always said that the QPQ rule is incredibly silly and counterproductive, so I wasn't involved in introducing it, but that's not the point. By mentioning that I've contributed to DYK for a long time, I was just saying that you can take your pick of which review of mine you can consider as the QPQ for this nomination. The reason I reverted your edit is because I don't think it improves the quality of the article, that's all. I've given my reasons. If you think the article would be improved by this additional footnote, please cite your reasons and I would be more than happy to discuss this. I have always enjoyed having other editors contribute to articles I started. If you look at the history of this article you'll see that soon after I posted it, someone else made some changes that I thought really helped it along. Anyway, I don't see how I possibly abused my admin tools since I didn't use them even once in this whole discussion. I wasn't the one who brought up the fact that I'm an admin. I'm not going to add any kind of ugly infobox, to my user page, because, first, I don't have a user page and secondly, because I don't think there's any reason to. I might be wrong, but I think the only time I've used any admin tools within the last 12 months was to update DYK queues and everything associated with that. --Carabinieri (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's quite a biography. I do hope, however, that my nominations can be judged without knowing all that. As to referencing issue: every specific fact doesn't necessarily need to be directly attributed to a single source. I don't think having two consecutive sentences with the same footnote really helps. It's clear from the footnotes that the fact comes from one of the two NYT articles and I think that's good enough.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
