Template:Did you know nominations/Russian-Syrian hospital bombing campaign
- 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) 05:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Russian-Syrian hospital bombing campaign
[edit]- ... that Russia has denied claims that it has attacked hospitals in Syria? Russia pushes back against reports its planes bombed hospital in Syria [1]
- ALT1:... that in 2016 Russian and Syrian government forces have attacked hospitals more than 200 times? Syrian Medical Facilities Were Attacked More Than 250 Times This Year [2]
- Reviewed: Iatrophysics
- Comment: Moved to main space on 7 April 2017 from sandbox within user space. Article is referenced in all but the lead section, which is not necessary required as it sums up the body of the article. Article is over 1500 characters in length, and is not a stub. Every sentence within the article is cited to a reliable source. QPQ completed (diff link provided). I am open to more hook suggestions.
Moved to mainspace by RightCowLeftCoast (talk). Self-nominated at 06:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC).
After a thorough review I have decided that this article cannot, at this time, be on the Main Page. There are clear WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV concerns which are simply too serious to be addressed during this review. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- The above editor had nominated the article for deletion. If anything the article should be placed on hold until the AfD, which I believe is in error, has been completed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast I don't know if the turn-around tick is the correct symbol. However, Coffee opened the AFD on this 46 minutes before making the above comment. Let's wait until the AFD runs its course. If it survives, then a full review needs to be done by an uninvolved party. — Maile (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Maile66: Just so everyone's clear, I came across this DYK nomination first before I even knew of the article (this was actually a QPQ for a DYK of mine Unita Blackwell)... I just took a while between opening the AFD and making my intended review here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The AfD has closed as "keep"; however, the article has an undue template on it, and cannot pass DYK until it has been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset:I would be willing to work on that, but my response on the article's talk page to a proposed way to fix the alleged neutrality issue, has gone unanswered.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset:It appears to have been resolved.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Full review needed now that issues mentioned above appear to have been resolved, though the reviewer should check for him or herself. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Tags are removed; article looks in good shape. I will not give this the green checkmark myself because I was a minor contributor to the article, but I find that it meets all five criteria: article is sufficiently new, sufficiently long, and within policy (I discern no POV issues, sources are reliable, etc.); hooks meet length and content guidelines. No reason why this shouldn't pass. Neutralitytalk 23:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: @Neutrality: I read the AfD discussion and the entire article. I made some copyedits as I went along, so please check them out. The article is neutral, hook is cited and interesting, there is no close paraphrasing (less than 4.8%), and QPQ is done. There's only one minor concern, though its not a problem for the promotion. Although the lead does not need a source per WP:LEAD, there is no mention of the "Damascus government" in the body paragraphs. I understand this means "Syrian government", but I would consider rephrasing since it might confuse those unfamiliar with the phrasing (i.e. if I were to say "Los Pinos is concerned with the attacks", would you know I'm referring to the Mexican presidency?). Cheers, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 08:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ComputerJA: I have made the requested change here. If there is anything else that needs to be done, please contact me.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
