Template:Did you know nominations/The origins of political order
- 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: rejected by Allen3 talk 22:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Origins of Political Order
[edit]- ... that Francis Fukuyama wrote a theory of the origins of human political order starting with chimpanzee political order?
5x expanded by DanielDemaret (talk). Self nominated at 11:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC).
Length OK, hook potentially interesting and referenced, expansion criteria met. I would suggest changing the wording to "wrote a" rather than "has written a", shorter and in the active voice. From a style point of view, each review does not need it's own section and you should address that. ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 14:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have now, by your kind suggestion 1) changed Hook to "wrote". 2) removed subsections and also 3) attempted to review another DYK. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Minor issues fixed up. Good to go. ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 07:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have now, by your kind suggestion 1) changed Hook to "wrote". 2) removed subsections and also 3) attempted to review another DYK. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- In addition to the use of absolutely huge blockquotes, this article includes some material taken near-verbatim from sources that is not quoted - for example, "it is refreshing to find a scholar prepared to tackle big questions in this way", or "Although the future trajectory of China is a question lurking in the background, Fukuyama is concerned mainly with the sense of political stasis haunting many liberal democracies". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Nikkimaria. I have revised the Reception section and tried to eliminate near-verbatims and huge block-quote, mostly by shortening them. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work so far, DanielDemaret (and when a quote has been shortened to less than about 40 words, it can be presented inline rather than blockquoted). However, while Reception had the greatest number of long quotes, I don't believe it is the only section with issues of unquoted near-verbatim material - compare for example "This enmeshed states in networks of accountability to non-state actors, in this case to the clergy and to the pope, who historically frequently objected to wars, similarly to what had happened in India, but it also left states strong enough to function" to "This enmeshed states in networks of accountability to non-state actors, just as had happened in India, but it also left states strong enough to function" from here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you Nikkimaria. I have now worked on the text before "reception", chasing copied texts, and improved references. Do you think I should change quotes with fewer than 40 words to inline? Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- "creating stable, peaceful, prosperous, inclusive, and honest societies" and "seemed genuinely surprised when the Iraqi state itself collapsed in an orgy of looting and civil conflict" are further examples of non-quoted copying; at this point, it would probably be worthwhile for you to go through the article line by line to check for further issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It has been four weeks, and aside from a single edit seven hours after that above that did not address the copying issue, the creator has not edited the article much less done the line-by-line examination Nikkimaria suggested. Furthermore, there have been no Wikipedia edits at all for over two weeks. Under the circumstances, I'm marking the nomination for closure as unsuccessful, since the article certainly cannot be promoted as it is now. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
