Template:Did you know nominations/Freedom and Unity Front

The following discussion 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 Allen3 ^talk 16:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Freedom and Unity Front

(

)

... ~~that former Ugandan General and member of the National Resistance Army, David Sejusa formed the politial party Freedom and Unity Front?~~

Reviewed: Church Clothes 2

Created by Lihaas (talk). Self nominated at 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC).

- The article is nowhere near ready to appear on the main page via a DYK. Too many issues need fixing. It reads too much like an essay. It's written in a very unencyclopedic style with mainly quotes of he said/she said. The article lacks any true substance. I would dare to even nominate it for deletion but I'd have to take a much closer look and spend a lot more time reviewing it. Don't see how and/when this article will meet the DYK criteria. After all the unnecessary material is trimmed there may not be much left. EagerToddler39 (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK criteria indicates: new, long, sources, neutral, hook and QPQ. And not copyvio. Don't know what writing style was about as that is very subjective to reviewers.

Ive cut the quotes. BUt the context of it being a fight with the leadership of the country is what the substance of this party is. That is the most relevant.

Also now expanded.Lihaas (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The DYK criteria says the article must be new - this means new content, not simply copy-pasted quotes. That's what I expressed concern about, that the article was mainly a string of quotes. As you've done for most of the quotes you've converted it into continuous prose which was what I was indicating with my comments. Some recommendations to get this article ready: 1). Fix the typo in the hook 2). The article indicates that the party is led by Sejusa and was formed via an amalgamation of two other parties. Nowhere in the article is it stated that he formed the party. Please rewrite so that this details is clear in the body of the article. Ensure that piece of information also has an inline citation. EagerToddler39 (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the above comment, adding this status icon as a fair assessment of where the nomination stands; it doesn't need a reviewer at the present time. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that former Ugandan General and member of the National Resistance Army, David Sejusa leads the Freedom and Unity Front?Lihaas (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

hellooooo?????Lihaas (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The edits on 8 January changed the article, but did not resolve the problems identified here. As written, the article is highly derivative of its sources. Just one example of content that is too close to the source:

Source: In October, Museveni dared Sejusa to try to overthrow him and said anyone using violence would be stopped.

Article: In the second half of 2013, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni challenged former General David Sejusa to try to overthrow him, but added that whoever uses violence would be stopped.

An additional serious concern is that, because the article is strung together from a series of journalistic statements like that one, plus direct quotations from various Ugandan politicians, it fails to provide needed context. For example, nowhere in the article is there any indication that Museveni has suppressed opposition and, up until 2005, had banned opposing political parties. Given that most readers of Wikipedia don't live in Uganda and don't follow its internal politics, contextual information like this is important. --Orlady (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Lihaas (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Lihaas, while you've added a couple of contextual statements—I'll let someone else judge whether it's enough, though two statements isn't likely to solve a "serious concern"—it looks like in the area of close paraphrasing you only corrected the example Orlady gave. She said that "the article is highly derivative of its sources" and lists "just one example". This is an issue that affects the entire article, and therefore it's up to you to go through and recheck your sources, removing close paraphrasing throughout. If you wish this article to pass DYK, you need to do significantly more work before we can, in fairness, ask a reviewer to take another look. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

~~Ah, just getting to it.~~Last 2 sections are fine. ~~doing to first now.~~ Better?Lihaas (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is still far too heavy on long colorful quotations (such as the passage: Sejusa said: "He started that rebellion. He gave them arms, he gave them financial support, he gave them equipment, and he gave them uniforms. So, it’s not like I’m talking out of the blue. But, then, the chameleon he is, he turns around and then he postures as if he’s the one who wants to bring peace.") and far too light on fact-based narrative. With reference to that particular long quotation, most of the content should converted to narrative style. For example, state that Sejusa accuses Museveni of starting the rebellion [indicate by whom, against whom and when] by supplying [who?] with money, uniforms, and equipment. Limit the direct quotation to brief passages, such as that Sejusa has labeled Museveni "a chameleon" who "postures as if he’s the one who wants to bring peace" by [doing what? -- please explain what Sejusa is referring to].

Additionally, a lot of the content that isn't presented as direct quotations is still too similar to sources (for example:

Source: Deterioration and erosion of people’s human rights as exemplified by the increase in extra-judicial killings carried out by Museveni’s killer squads, the brutalisation, beatings and torture of innocent citizens.
Article: what it sees as a deterioration and erosion of human rights, particularly a rise in extrajudicial killings

The similarity of wording in that example would be more acceptable if the repeated phrases were placed in quotation marks and identified as being excerpts from an FUF situation analysis report (or a media analysis of an FUF situation analysis report).

I think this is an important topic, but overall, I have a very hard time making sense out of the article. The article body starts out with a History section, wherein it is really hard to sort out a chronological sequence. That section starts out in the second half of 2013, then moves to May 2013, which is followed by a variety of statements about events "earlier" and "a week after" and "then", followed by a reference to 2005.... You've lost me! Something more similar to a chronology would help the reader a lot.

Please try to revise the article so that it tells, in organized fashion, the story of the formation of this party, including who the major players are, what the significant issues are, and the sequence of significant events. Simply reassembling the story in a more organized (i.e., linear) fashion should help to greatly reduce the similarity of the article to the wording and phrasing of the sources. --Orlady (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

~~Will do the first.~~ There is only one long quote, while the others are less than a sentence. One is not too much either, neverthreless I pros-ified it

The wording has changed but the said bold statements are key terms. How is this then? Also the caveat that it is from the horse's moouth introduces that sentence already.

Good spot on the chronology. I added stuff I found later but for an earlier date merely on to the text. Fixed?Lihaas (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edits improved things somewhat, but I still struggled with trying to figure out who did what, and when (sometimes I couldn't tell which decade was being discussed) and why. Seeing how frustrating this interaction has become, I took it upon myself to rewrite part of the article to resolve some close paraphrasing and so that it wouldn't leave me asking so many basic questions. I didn't finish; much of the part I didn't edit still reads like "Sayings from Chairman Sejusa" -- and it is still not clear whether the party has plans beyond the issuance of position statements.

I have struck through the original hook because the article and sources do not indicate that Sejusa formed the party by himself. ALT1 is also not supported by the article, since the article never says that Sejusa was a member of National Resistance Army, and the article and sources suggest that there are multiple leaders. I suggest another ALT hook that I think is supported by the current article and sources:

ALT2 ... that the leaders of the new Ugandan opposition political party Freedom and Unity Front include David Sejusa, a former Ugandan general and parliament member who left the country in 2013? --Orlady (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Lihaas, please see if my changes make sense, and consider whether you can make additional revisions. I can't review this for DYK any more due to the amount of work I've done on the article. --Orlady (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Tthats fine.Lihaas (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Now this needs a review by a new set of eyes. --Orlady (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

ALT2 is good to go. New enough (at time of nomination...) Long enough. Is neutral. All paragraphs sourced, and hook facts/sentences are directly attributable to reliable sources. No copyvios detected. QPQ complete. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)