Template:Did you know nominations/Samuel Atta Akyea
- 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) 05:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Samuel Atta Akyea
[edit]... that Samuel Atta Akyea is the only person apart from the President Akuffo-Addo to have represented the Abuakwa South constituency in the 4th republic of Ghana? Source: thisALT1:... that Ghanaian legislator Samuel Atta Akyea was accused of not doing enough to prevent environmental degradation by galamseyers? Source: see this]
- Reviewed: Yvonne Busch
Created by Crosstemplejay (talk). Self-nominated at 13:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC).
Article created recently enough to nomination, long enough, is neutral, cites sources, no copyvio evident, both hooks meet formatting requirements (but don't need any commas), but the first I think is better for a broad audience, is neutral and in the article, QPQ done. The source given doesn't mention Samuel Atta Akyea, but this one does. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 13:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
For DYK, while a source can be given here to aid the reviewer, the key requirement is that the hook facts are sourced no later than the end of the article sentence in which they appear. This is certainly not true of the original hook, at least as regards the "only person apart from President Akuffo-Addo" fact, and needs to be addressed in the article. (The source linked by Hameltion doesn't contain that fact.) The ALT1 hook probably runs afoul of the neutrality rule. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Crosstemplejay Can you add a source to the article immediately after this sentence: "Akufo-Addo up to that point had been the only person to have represented the constituency in the 4th Republic parliament." The source needs to indicate that Samuel Atta Akyea and Nana Akufo-Addo are the only two people to have represented the Abuakwa South constituency. Also, I think the wording of ALT0 is incorrect, in that the president was in the 4th parliament, while Akyea was in the 5th parliament. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
It has been over three weeks since problems were raised here, and no response has yet been made here or on the talk page, which was pinged then. Marking for closure, although if there is a response from the nominator before the nomination closes, the review can continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging Crosstemplejay one more time to fix the issues. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Usernameunique: I looked at this one a while back and couldn't find a source for the original hook. ALT1 is close, but a little too broad since he was confronted specifically about galamseying on the Birim river. How about this:
ALT2 :... that Ghanaian legislator Samuel Atta Akyea was accused of not doing enough to protect the Birim River from galamseyers? Source: see this] --MopTop (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)- MopTop Thanks for stepping in. See BlueMoonset's point about neutrality regarding ALT1 (also applies to ALT2), however. How about:
- ALT3: ... that Ghanaian legislator Samuel Atta Akyea suggested that the fight against galamseyers required military support? --Usernameunique (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Usernameunique: You're right, ALT2 is too negative. There's still a "citation needed" tag in the article, does that disqualify it? --MopTop (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- MopTop I added that "citation needed" tag in response to ALT0, which would have needed an inline citation. (It does appear to be true for whatever it's worth, I just couldn't find a source that said so explicitly.) I think the article is probably fine even with that tag (as long as ALT0 is struck), because the paragraph still has citations. BlueMoonset, does that seem right? --Usernameunique (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- MopTop Since there's been no response, I just removed that sentence. Can you give ALT3 a look? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- MopTop I added that "citation needed" tag in response to ALT0, which would have needed an inline citation. (It does appear to be true for whatever it's worth, I just couldn't find a source that said so explicitly.) I think the article is probably fine even with that tag (as long as ALT0 is struck), because the paragraph still has citations. BlueMoonset, does that seem right? --Usernameunique (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Usernameunique: You're right, ALT2 is too negative. There's still a "citation needed" tag in the article, does that disqualify it? --MopTop (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
