Template:Did you know nominations/Mexico–Venezuela relations
- 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 Miyagawa (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Mexico–Venezuela relations[edit]
- ... that Mexico–Venezuela relations were strained in November of 2005 by comments Hugo Chavez made on a talk show?
- Reviewed: Antonio Lago
Created by Buggie111 (talk). Self nom at 13:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you did a great job at rescuing the article. It's a very important subject, and the hook is well sourced (although the name of the talk show is mention in the article but is not available in any of the two sources cited for it). I think the article may need some improvement. First off, the first paragraph requires a citation. The sources are good, but you might also want to fix them by using full citations (see WP:CITEX and WP:CITE for more information). ComputerJA (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
-
- "Who" and "When" templates were added to the article page by an editor a few days ago. Basically, the article seems to assume the reader already knows about the various leaders and when things occurred, and neither assumption is a good idea in a Wikipedia article. The first paragraph seems to take the approach that it was during Fox's term that the problems occurred, rather than it was during Chavez's presidency, or (more likely) that the differing views of the two leaders and their relationships with the US might have played a role. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Full DYK review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
New enough, just long enough, neutral, fully sourced, no close paraphrasing concerns, neutral, hook is short enough and sourced. Unfortunate that a rich topic that should cover 200 years or more is mostly about just one recent incident, but that does not disqualify the article. Good to go. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
