Template:Did you know nominations/Hisham Nazer
- 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: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hisham Nazer
[edit]- ... that Hisham Nazer is the first Saudi board chairman of the Saudi Aramco?
- Reviewed: I have reviewed meow (cat) in September 2012
Created/expanded by Egeymi (talk). Self nom at 10:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't appear that the claim that he was the first Saudi board chairman is directly supported by the sources. In any case, it's a really uninteresting hook. Can you suggest another one? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- WP:AGF on whether or not you reviewed something in September 2012. I looked, but couldn't find it. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Whether or not it is an interesting hook depends on your subjective evaluation; but you could not claim that the proposition given in the hook is not supported by the sources, please see for instance http://articles.latimes.com/1988-04-07/business/fi-1528_1_saudi-arabia Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding my evaluation of other DYK nominations, please search for it again but maybe more carefully, thanks.Egeymi (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is my subjective evaluation, but it is also a requirement for DYK that the hook be interesting (see: WP:DYK#The_hook). OK on source, must have missed that somehow. As I said regarding your reviews, I'm assuming good faith, it's not a big deal.
As it stands, without an interesting hook, I'm not willing to give this one a tick. You're welcome to ask for a second opinion from WT:DYK or you can suggest another better hook from the article. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- ALT1:... that Hisham Nazer lost his career as a Saudi ambassador for rude remarks to a Saudi woman at an airport?
- ALT1a:... that Hisham Nazer lost his career as an ambassador for rude remarks to a woman at an airport?
If there is such thing as crediting me for ALT1(a), please feel free to contact me. --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Those alts are good, supported by sources and interesting. Although I wonder if putting it on the front page gives undue weight to something which is slightly embarrassing (even if it is true). While not strictly speaking a BLP violation... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Just took a look, and my idea sucks, but... ALT2 ... that former oil minister, CEO of Saudi Aramco and Saudi Ambassador to Egypt, Hisham Nazer, has something of a sensitive side and expresses this in poetry?
- ALT1 and ALT1a focus too much on a negative aspect of a BLP to be acceptable (Wikipedia:Did you know#Content, fourth bullet). ALT2 is not entirely supported by the sources. The situation that he holds the Minister of Planning position since 1975 would make a very unusual statement and a good hook, but this is likewise not supported by any source---in this aspect the article should be curated: None of the sources say that he kept the Planning portfolio, and I would think this to be quite unusual. Personally, I find the original hook not too boring to be acceptable. --Pgallert (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
If one finds original hook boring, other finds it otherwise. Let's have either another reviewer who can find it the only interesting hook in mind, or the same reviewer who find it "boring" review the nomination again. --George Ho (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, as I said above, I'm not willing to approve the first hook. If someone else will, I'm not going to argue, but, I'd suggest that people put their energies into coming up with a better alt instead. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- A point about that original hook's sourcing: the LA Times story is about Aramco, not Saudi Aramco, which wouldn't exist for several months. Nazer was the first Saudi Arabian chairman of that (which was more notable)—Kelberer, an American, had been chairman of Aramco; Nazer was also the first chairman of Saudi Aramco, which took over starting that November; that's supported by ref 17, a primary source (the in-house magazine of the company). The article needs to make this clear. Puzzlingly, the intro of the article says Nazer was president, not chairman; that needs to be fixed. I suggest a variant of the original hook:
- ALT3: ... that Hisham Nazer was simultaneously the Saudi Arabian oil minister and the first Saudi board chairman of Saudi Aramco?
- I thought about changing "was simultaneously" to "was, for several years, both", but sourcing would need to be found and added for the end of Nazer's chairmanship. (I'm not entirely sure whether "simultaneously" is more or less hooky.) —BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- The various inconsistencies mentioned above by BlueMoonset and myself need to be addressed before the article can be linked from the main page. --Pgallert (talk) 09:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset and Pgallert I have added further info regarding his role in Aramco. Yes, Pgallert you are right, the company was called Aramco until his appointment. Thank you very much for your efforts and comments on these issues. Happy new year to you,Egeymi (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
for ALT3 and the original hook, preferring ALT3. The simultaneous occupation of the two roles is backed by a reliable source. They confirm Nazer was Chairman of AramCo while serving as oil minister. Technically, the sources that explain the change from Aramco to Saudi Aramco are all dependent sources, I'm willing to IAR on this very minor point. Thanks to all for the perseverance with this DYK nomination. Cheers, --Pgallert (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset and Pgallert I have added further info regarding his role in Aramco. Yes, Pgallert you are right, the company was called Aramco until his appointment. Thank you very much for your efforts and comments on these issues. Happy new year to you,Egeymi (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- A point about that original hook's sourcing: the LA Times story is about Aramco, not Saudi Aramco, which wouldn't exist for several months. Nazer was the first Saudi Arabian chairman of that (which was more notable)—Kelberer, an American, had been chairman of Aramco; Nazer was also the first chairman of Saudi Aramco, which took over starting that November; that's supported by ref 17, a primary source (the in-house magazine of the company). The article needs to make this clear. Puzzlingly, the intro of the article says Nazer was president, not chairman; that needs to be fixed. I suggest a variant of the original hook:
- Link to the QPQ review: Template:Did you know nominations/Meow (cat). BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article may be too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "he generated the concept for Saudi Arabia’s two major industrial cities, Jubail and Yanbu, directing the construction and management" with "he developed the concept for Saudi Arabia’s two industrial cities, Jubail and Yanbu, directing their construction and management", and "promising young technocrat", for example, is a direct quote from the source but is not noted as such. The article could also do with a good copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Not edited in almost two weeks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
