Template:Did you know nominations/Nahrawan Canal
- 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: promoted by PumpkinSky talk 02:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Nahrawan Canal, Muhammad ibn Ra'iq[edit]
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that Ibn Ra'iq ordered the destruction of the Nahrawan Canal to stop a mutinous army from advancing on Baghdad, even though it was the main irrigation network for the fields that fed the city?
- Reviewed: Nerses IV the Gracious and Chor von St. Bonifatius
Created/expanded by Cplakidas (talk). Self nom at 15:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Both articles check out for length and date. The hook however doesn't have an inline citation in either article. The citation needs to be at the end of each sentence containing a fact from the hook (so in the Nahrawan Canal article, it should probably be in the lead section and later in the body, as the two facts are in different places). Furthermore, while the there is no consensus as to whether QPQ is applied as Hook for Hook, or article for article, I would encourage the editor to review another article as a courtesy, since DYK is running dangerously low on reviews at the moment. Yazan (talk) 06:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that the hook needs to be explicitly stated and referenced, as long as the facts mentioned are referenced. The hook is in essence a summary of the relevant sections from both articles, rather than a single statement. In both articles Ibn Ra'iq's action and his motivation are mentioned, and the Nahrawan's role in feeding Baghdad is made clear, although not in the exact words I've used in the hook (chosen by reasons of hook size more than anything). On the second review, I'll get to it right away. Constantine ✍ 07:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Second review done. Constantine ✍ 07:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the second review.
- I don't have a problem with the hook not being mentioned with the same words in the article. The problem that arises though, is that the two facts of the hook: a) that Ibn Ra'iq ordered the canal destroyed, b) that the canal was of high importance to agriculture in Iraq; they appear in two successive sentences in the first article, but the citation is only found at the end of the paragraph; you should add an inline citation at lest after the "since the canal played a central role in the ancient irrigation system of the Sawad." And it shouldn't be all that difficult to do.
- In the second article: The hook is almost explicitly mentioned in the lead, without any citations. And then the facts are mentioned again in the body, but with citations in the middle of the paragraph. It should be easy enough to move the inline citation at the end of the sentences that contain the hook fact (either in the lead or in the body).
- I'm not trying to put too much weight on procedural issues, but this is a very fundamental and established guideline in DYK, that hook facts must have an inline citation at the end of the sentence.
- Article should be good to go once that is dealt with. Yazan (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I'm not mad at you for sticking to the rules ;) Modifications done, as requested. Constantine ✍ 10:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
