Template:Did you know nominations/India-Kuwait relations
The following is an archived discussion of India-Kuwait relations's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: rejected by Allen3 talk 12:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC).
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
India-Kuwait relations[edit]
- ... that India's pro-Iraq stance, its decision to shift its embassy to Basra during the Gulf War and the demolition of the Babri Masjid strained India-Kuwait relations in the early 1990s?
- Reviewed: Haseeb Ahsan
Created by Ashwin147 (talk). Self nominated at 14:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC).
. Length, date and hook reference verified. No copy vio. Good to go.--Nvvchar. 16:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I am concerned that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "Indian imports from Kuwait of approximately $15.67 billion consists of petroleum imports and it is India's second largest supplier of oil from the GCC countries after Saudi Arabia" with "With India's petroleum imports from Kuwait of approximately $15.67 billion, Kuwait is the second largest supplier of oil from the GCC countries after Saudi Arabia", or "Until the discovery of oil, the Kuwaiti economy depended heavily on maritime activities and trade including ship building, pearl diving and fishing and they traded in dates, horses, wood, cereals, clothes and spices with India. Until 1961 the Indian Rupee was the legal tender in Kuwait" with "Until 1961, Indian Rupee was the legal tender in Kuwait. Till the discovery of oil, Kuwait's economy revolved around its harbour and maritime activities which included ship building, pearl diving, fishing...dates that were traded for wood, cereals, clothes and spices", or "Kuwait's Ministry of Health also employs a number of doctors, physicians and para-medical professionals" with "The Ministry of Health employs a number of doctors, physicians and para-medical professionals". These are examples only, a full check and significant rewriting is needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- In my defence, every single one of them is a fact. The numbers, items and figures will correspond no matter how the material is written. Its not a copy-paste job/ copy-paste work with no references either, so the reader knows exactly where the data comes from. That said, do do a full check.Ashwin147 (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Did you mean to do the check, or were you encouraging Nikkimaria to do so? As written, it appears to be the latter, though that could be a typo ("do do" instead of, say, "I'll do"). I think the point here is that it is up to you to do that full check while you do the rewriting to resolve all the close paraphrasing in the article, not simply addressing those examples above. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I've gone through each reference and looked at the text to see if the writing in text is okay. I find only the trade heading part of it slightly flummoxing. In the sense that the figures and the facts remain the same and I don't know how else to rephrase them anymore than I've already done in the new set of edits. So help make/ suggest alternatives, don't just quote if there are any more problems (which I hope there aren't). Thank you. Ashwin147 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Better, but still needs improvement. Compare for example "the recent discovery of antiquities such as seals, pottery and jewellery from the Kuwaiti island of Failaka" with "antiquities such as seals, pottery, jewellery recently discovered on the Kuwaiti Island of Failaka". Also, footnote 10 is a dead link. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Altered and link resurrected.Ashwin147 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Just noticed I hadn't signed off this post earlier. Now are we good to go, or do we need a new review?Ashwin147 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd like a second opinion on this, actually. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done. I've gone through each reference and looked at the text to see if the writing in text is okay. I find only the trade heading part of it slightly flummoxing. In the sense that the figures and the facts remain the same and I don't know how else to rephrase them anymore than I've already done in the new set of edits. So help make/ suggest alternatives, don't just quote if there are any more problems (which I hope there aren't). Thank you. Ashwin147 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- Still paraphrasing too close to the source. Take for example a look at ref number [1]. In the Wikipedia article: "Diplomatic relations between the countries began in June 1962 with the appointment of Yacoub Abdulaziz al-Rasheed as the first Kuwaiti Ambassador to India." In the reference: "The diplomatic relations with India started in June 1962 with the appointment of Yacoub Abdulaziz al-Rasheed as the first Kuwaiti Ambassador in India [...]" —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 21:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)