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 BorgQueen (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
... that despite her physical disability, Sara Gadalla Gubara came third in a 50 km mixed-sex national swimming event in 1972? Source: newspaper shout UNCIF
QPQ: - not needed Overall: As clever as this hook is, I'm afraid that the source of the hook https://www.assayha.net/ is reliable or not. I'm not sure if https://www.unicef.org/ can be used as a source at the DYK. Please explain the source's reliability. Taung Tan (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
It qualified for approval after I reviewed the sources. So it's good to go. Taung Tan (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Taung Tan, in which case you may wish to change "cited" to yes. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild and Taung Tan: I should let y'all know that in general, it's best to leave initial reviews as-is, so that promoters know what went down at a glance when trying to close up a nom. Many thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
FuzzyMagma and Taung Tan, earwig picked up a sentence in the article that appears to be virtually the same as one in the cited source. the source is dated 2010, while the wikipedia article was recently created.
article:
Her documentary film The Lover of Light (2004) is both a metaphor for Gadalla Gubara and for his interest in bringing social issues to light through filmmaking.
source:
Sara's film The Lover of Light (2004) is both a metaphor of Gadalla Gubara and of his interest in bringing social issues to light through filmmaking.
also, although there aren't many english sources, i picked one of them at random, and it doesn't seem to support the text for which it is cited. the source is used following a paragraph covering gadalla gubara's tertiary education, but the source doesn't seem to mention her tertiary education at all. i admittedly stopped checking sources after that. dying (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
@Dying:, the sentence was taken from Cinema of Sudan (before ref 23). I have now rephrased it. Reference 19, was also copied over from the lede of Gadalla Gubara, ref. 2 (also indicated in the edit). I should have checked, and sorry for not doing that. I have now moved to where it belongs, near ref (26). It is now being replaced by Ref. 10, 6, and 19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuzzyMagma (talk • contribs)
FuzzyMagma, that is good to know. thank you for clearing that up. (by the way, the title of the documentary should have remained in italics when you were rephrasing the sentence mentioned above, as placing the title in italics is not a personal decision, but a general english standard. more details regarding how wikipedia treats titles of works can be found at mos:title. DoneFuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
unfortunately, i am now also worried about the quality of the sources provided. i decided to take a look at the arabic sources, and the first one i looked at, the sudaneseonline source, appears to be a message board, which is not a reliable source. depends on who wrote it? not all sources are BBC and NYT. I mentioned above who wrote it and why I think it can be seen as reliable. anyway can be removed if contested furtherFuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
admittedly, i stopped looking at arabic sources after that. i also noticed that the article was originally translated from ar wikipedia. as i am not fluent in arabic, i cannot competently check for copyright violations or instances of close paraphrasing with regard to the arabic sources, which may have existed in the ar wikipedia article before you translated it. I am not sure casting doubts without an evidence is a good thing as it can be easily interrupted as assuming bad faith. Please either give evidence to your claims or refrain from being too hypotheticalFuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
due to these issues, i do not feel comfortable promoting this hook at this time. your opinion is noted, and again can be easily amended - at least the point were you provided a ground for doubts. anyhow there is already an endorsement and a DYK check aboveFuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
anyone else is free to promote this hook if they are confident enough in the quality of the hook and the article, you did not mention anything about the hook itself in your argument, so I am not sure why now you are mentioning the quality of the hookFuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
or request a more in-depth review if they believe it is warranted. i do want to see this article promoted, as i had initially looked over this nomination intending to promote it, but i don't think i am competent enough to give this nomination a proper review. dying (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Needs further review by new reviewer per discussion above. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I came by hoping to review this, but I lack the expertise. We may need help from a native Arabic speaker (who is not the nominator). There are too many things in the grey area here; source quality, close paraphrasing, and verifiability on a lot of sources are borderline. I did spot-check a couple of English refs, and found no verifiability issues; but conversely, the sudaneseonline source and the blogspot source are plain unnacceptable, and need to be removed. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: What we're looking at here is rule 4.b at WP:DYKCRIT as the hook and article passed other rules (correct me if I am wrong)
(1) for the sudaneseonline, I mentioned above it is not about being a blog, it is about who wrote it as you need to adjust Wikipedia:Verifiability for Global South regions where the Western media coverage about them is conflict-related. BUT even if you do not agree, the blog has images that verifies whatever is written and were it was cited in the article, for example, the image for 1975 Beijing race
(2) I removed the infromation from the blog post as most of the infromation was also included in an published article by the same author.
(3) for other source quality issues please let me know
(4) for the arabic sources, I assume you can machine translate the page to have a rough idea or tage a native arabic speaker if you know one
(5) close paraphrasing: did not understand the earlier reviewer hypothesis and now you are repeating the same line with nothing to backup the claim. Anyway, I cannot amend the article for this hypothesis, give more to work with to get this article through. Thanks FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I said explicitly that I'm not going to do a full review, so there's not much point in asking me for other issues. However, the message board source needs to go: it does not even come close to meeting our criteria for reliable sources. Yes, we can accept SPS from experts; but who wrote this? And how do we even know who did? It's functionally anonymous. We do not relax WP:V; it's a core policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
And I didn’t asked to . I’m refuting you assertion, regardless if you made them part of a full review or not (maybe you should have done before posting them). Anyway, I already replied to the point of SLS, and don’t wish to repeat myself since your response does not address what I have highlighted especially what I’ve said after the word “BUT”.
not sure what message board you’re talking about
Plus, There is a reason why I have put my reply into bulletin as not confuse what is contested and what is ‘’hypothetical’’ so I’d appreciate a reply that fellows suit .. thnx FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
New enough, long enough. Hook short enough and sourced, as is every paragraph that needs one. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ not necessary, and image properly licensed. Good to go.--Launchballer 09:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- not needed
As clever as this hook is, I'm afraid that the source of the hook https://www.assayha.net/ is reliable or not. I'm not sure if https://www.unicef.org/ can be used as a source at the DYK. Please explain the source's reliability. Taung Tan (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
It qualified for approval after I reviewed the sources. So it's good to go. Taung Tan (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Done FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Needs further review by new reviewer per discussion above. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
