Template:Did you know nominations/Lusaka Manifesto

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 Allen3 ^talk 22:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Lusaka Manifesto

(

)

... that in the 1969 Lusaka Manifesto, black-ruled African States offered dialogue with apartheid South Africa?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Sahifat al-Ridha

Moved to mainspace by Pgallert (talk). Self nominated at 19:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

Fails to meet core DYK eligibility criteria. Article expansion is not sufficient. It was 1,200 words in September. Article expansion appears to have started on January 11th. The article is currently 1,300 words. A five fold expansion would require 6,000 word article. Or the article need to be promoted to Good Article status. See Wikipedia:Did_you_know#DYK_rules Gaff (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Article was moved from Userspace January 11th, so it is new enough. Length is sufficient. Each paragraph is cited with appropriately formatted in-line citations. Hook is appropriately formatted and of sufficient general interest. The content of "hook" is mentioned in the lede paragraph, but not clearly cited there or in article text (or more likely, it is cited and I am just not seeing it). Please clarify the reference/citation (i.e. spell it out for a dummy). I found no close paraphrasing/plagiarism issues on review of some of the online references; will AGF on the rest, since article created by experienced editor. QPQ check done. No image to review (a copy of the signed original document might work, though I cannot find anything on Google image search). Gaff (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A second pair of eyes is always good... I thought the hook is sufficiently close to the second block quote in "Reception", but I have now inserted some clarification under "content". Thanks for reviewing! --Pgallert (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. See above for full notes on review. Gaff (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Pgallert: - I've moved this to the holding area for Black History Month. It seemed fitting. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how relevant the politics of South Africa are to Black History Month or rather -- African-American History Month) -- & this seems a bit US-centric, but I'm okay as long as @Pgallert: agrees. Gaff (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with that date, it is black history after all. Although I doubt anyone in sub-Saharan Africa would recognise that the timing is special for this DYK. --Pgallert (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)