Template:Did you know nominations/Hijabophobia
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Hijabophobia
[edit]- ... that a ruling by the European Court of Justice allowing employers to ban staff from wearing the hijab has been described as a normalization of hijabophobia? Source: Huffingtonpost
- ALT1:... that FIFA's ban of the head cover in 2011–2014 is regarded as a hijabophobic act? Source: Women's Studies International Forum
Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 18:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC).
Needs work: New enough, long enough. Some citations under section European Court of Justice appear to be misplaced (I think the sources cover everything, you just need the inline citations in the right places). I'd prefer if a better source were found for the first reference which is an undergraduate thesis (its bibliography lists 50–60 sources). After that's taken care of, there is some close paraphrasing and quotes that could be paraphrased. I think there are some tone/neutrality issues as well, since the article is essentially accusing governments and organizations of being Islamophobic; their point of view should be adequately covered. (I'll try to help with that after the citations are fixed.)Hook is short enough, formatted, cited in article, and interesting.(I think you could probably strike "at work" as being assumed.)QPQ checks out. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Reidgreg: Many thanks for the precise review and for your edits in the article. I've fixed some of the citation-related issues you mentioned. See if it's alright. By the way, can you elaborate on POV issue? --Mhhossein talk 12:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- I did some more work on the article and added two sources to replace some of the "thesis" material. Feel free to revert any parts you don't like. I feel pretty happy with it but I'm sure it needs some copy edit and maybe a little expansion of the lead. I will try to give it another look tomorrow, I haven't any more time today. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Additional: I probably over-reacted about the POV, it's good, especially with the new sources. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Approved ALT0 and ALT1: Picking up, article is well-sourced, neutral, and free of copyvio (the one high Earwig score is from a quote of a court ruling). Still long enough after some material was trimmed. Some inline cleanup tags have been placed by another editor but these do not affect DYK. I personally feel ALT0 is hookier, but either is good. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Reidgreg: Many thanks for the precise review and for your edits in the article. I've fixed some of the citation-related issues you mentioned. See if it's alright. By the way, can you elaborate on POV issue? --Mhhossein talk 12:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
This article is covered in tags. I've pulled it from the queue. Please resolve the lead issues, as well as the in-line tags. Cheers, Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Anarchyte: Oh, it was pulled in the last minutes...Anyway, I tried to resolve the those tags. Is it alright? --Mhhossein talk 16:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is still a speculation tag (and the sentence is strange as-is, too). @Mhhossein: Anarchyte (talk | work) 22:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Are we engaged in a GA process? Having done a dozens of DYKs, I'm seeing an unprecedented tough review. @Anarchyte: Can you help with the speculation tag? --Mhhossein talk 03:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- If it is going on the main page, it should at least be understandable. DYK is a terrible vetting process. Take a look at WP:ERRORS or WP:TRM for a demonstration of how much stuff gets passed here that really shouldn't (282+ on WP:TRM). I've removed the sentence as the author of the book shows no proof of this and there are no other sources presented. Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Anarchyte: my apologies for approving something that wasn't ready. Should I verify that the changes are good, or would a new reviewer be appropriate? – Reidgreg (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Reidgreg: I believe if something is disputed it has to be re-reviewed. The Rambling Man might be able to confirm this. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Anarchyte: my apologies for approving something that wasn't ready. Should I verify that the changes are good, or would a new reviewer be appropriate? – Reidgreg (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- If it is going on the main page, it should at least be understandable. DYK is a terrible vetting process. Take a look at WP:ERRORS or WP:TRM for a demonstration of how much stuff gets passed here that really shouldn't (282+ on WP:TRM). I've removed the sentence as the author of the book shows no proof of this and there are no other sources presented. Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- Are we engaged in a GA process? Having done a dozens of DYKs, I'm seeing an unprecedented tough review. @Anarchyte: Can you help with the speculation tag? --Mhhossein talk 03:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is still a speculation tag (and the sentence is strange as-is, too). @Mhhossein: Anarchyte (talk | work) 22:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- -Article is new enough (at least, it was at the time); long enough (3270 chars), relatively neutral cosidering the topic, now fully-cited and no longer tagged, and with no close paraphrasing or copyvios (except quotations); Hooks are well within character limit (157 / 81 chars), accurate, sourced, and in sad reflection of our times, definitely of general interest. The nom's QPQ is done; No image req. GTG on ALT0, which takes a broader view of the topic than its alt. ——SerialNumber54129 13:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)