Template:Did you know nominations/Embassy of the Philippines, Damascus
- 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) 17:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Embassy of the Philippines, Damascus
Exterior of the Philippine embassy in Damascus
- ... that abused Overseas Filipino Workers accused the chargé d'affaires of the Philippine embassy in Damascus (pictured) of neglecting them while regularly partying with "handsome" Syrians? Source: "Lamadrid was recalled from Syria after some maltreated overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), who had sought refuge in the Philippine embassy in Damascus, complained of being snubbed by him. The OFWs [...] said Lamadrid always held parties for his handsome Syrian friends, but didn’t deign to visit them at the embassy basement." --The Philippine Star
- Reviewed: Compaq Deskpro 386
Created by Sky Harbor (talk). Self-nominated at 15:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC).
Article
- 1. Long enough – the prose portion is at least 1,500 characters (in this case, well over 5000 alphanumeric characters)
- 2. Within policy – (NPOV, free of COPYVIO and plagiarism)
- 3. Inline citations provided
- 1. Long enough – the prose portion is at least 1,500 characters (in this case, well over 5000 alphanumeric characters)
Hook
- 1. Format – (185 characters)
- 2. Content – (broadly interesting, fact is accurate, neutral)
- 3. Grammar in hook is OK
- 1. Format – (185 characters)
Other
- 1. QPQ has been done
- 1. QPQ has been done
- Hi, DiverDave! Thank you for your review; QPQ is now done. (Also, friendly reminder: please make sure to sign your reviews so I know who left them.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Comment:
This article meets all of the criteria for DYK and is therefore good to go. However, in its current configuration, the story is a bit difficult to follow. For example:
- Comment:
- In the ==History== section, the timeline progresses nicely from 1946 to 1960 to 1961 to 1996 to 2009, but then ends abruptly. The reader is left thinking the embassy in Damascus was closed and has been moved to Aleppo.
- The timeline in the ==Staff and activities== section runs from 2008 to 2013 to 2021, but then the timeline in the ==Appointment of a new ambassador== section jumps back to 2011. This is confusing to the reader.
- The succession of the office of chargé d'affaires appears to be Cuyugan to Endaya to Padalhin to Lamadrid to Verzosa, but the reader has to do a great deal of jumping around to figure this out. I am sure this could be presented more clearly.
- The The Washington Post article (January 24, 2021) appears to have prompted at least one investigation, as well as other important consequences (and further articles such as the The Philippine Star article from which the hook is derived). I think it would be easier to follow this story if it were presented chronologically—as it unfolded—and all in the same section.
DiverDave (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting DYK. The hook works for me and good to go. --Toadboy123 (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- pinging those involved @Toadboy123 and Sky Harbor:. There were a number of concerns raised by DiverDave above but they have not been addressed. Bruxton (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Normally article issues themselves aren't raised in DYK, but I'll respond. There is a flow to all the articles I write about diplomatic missions. For one, the history section covers only the history of the mission itself; it does not cover any notable activities or controversies, which are normally covered in the next section as they involve the people that run the mission, not the mission itself. As for the succession issue, there has only been one ambassador; if I merge the succession of various chargés d'affaires into the broader section, it ends up adding undue weight to that controversy to the detriment of the mission's other activities. Same as well for the Washington Post exposé; it's in its own paragraph to keep it flowing fairly well and to avoid undue weight. --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Sky Harbor: Myself as a reviewer, I always address all article issues because we are presenting this on the main page. I hold up reviews for structure and the concerns that DiverDave has mentioned. I will see what Leeky thinks, Theleekycauldron, in any event another promotor can make a decision. I will remove my stopper. Bruxton (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think that's probably an issue to take up on the article talk – it's prohibitive for GA, but DYK is for new content. Sometimes it's gonna turn out kinda janky. Instead of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, I say we AGF that Sky Harbor and whoever else wants to can work this out after the DYK nom is promoted. Meanwhile, the regulars at DYK can get back to their jobs instead of getting into what looks to be a time-consuming-but-ultimately-not-DYK-criteria-related issue. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Sky Harbor: Myself as a reviewer, I always address all article issues because we are presenting this on the main page. I hold up reviews for structure and the concerns that DiverDave has mentioned. I will see what Leeky thinks, Theleekycauldron, in any event another promotor can make a decision. I will remove my stopper. Bruxton (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Normally article issues themselves aren't raised in DYK, but I'll respond. There is a flow to all the articles I write about diplomatic missions. For one, the history section covers only the history of the mission itself; it does not cover any notable activities or controversies, which are normally covered in the next section as they involve the people that run the mission, not the mission itself. As for the succession issue, there has only been one ambassador; if I merge the succession of various chargés d'affaires into the broader section, it ends up adding undue weight to that controversy to the detriment of the mission's other activities. Same as well for the Washington Post exposé; it's in its own paragraph to keep it flowing fairly well and to avoid undue weight. --Sky Harbor (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Note: The photograph of the building does not appear to be free in Syria, its country of origin. There's a very limited FOP for Syria that does not make exceptions for buildings unless we are a broadcasting network. And, since the embassy was opened in 2009, it does not appear to be out-of-copyright yet. It's wholly unclear to me if the Philippine government holds the copyright on the architecture of the building, so I think this needs a Commons DR. I had initially promoted the hook, but I think that the image needs to be hosted locally on EnWiki rather than on Commons if we're going to use a photograph in the hook (unless we want to wait until the resolution of a DR on Commons). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
