Template:Did you know nominations/Ourida Chouaki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Ourida Chouaki[edit]

Moved to mainspace by Dumelow (talk). Self-nominated at 21:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC).

  • New and long enough, and neutrally worded. Lots of inline citations and no evidence of copyright violations or close paraphrasing. [1] Hook is short enough (only 98 characters) and interesting enough, and it is cited in the article. That said, the source doesn't exactly say that she coordinated the campaign to reform the Algerian Family Code, just that she coordinated the campaign and she also talked about communicating the "dictats" of the code. [2] I would like to either see the hook reworded to match the source, or another source provided that matches the hook's claims more closely. Also, the QPQ needs to be done. Other than these two issues (both relatively minor) and some clunky wording in the article, this should be good to go, though. Everymorning (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Everymorning, thanks for the review. I have added my QPQ. I also added an additional source to the article to back-up 20 ans Barakat's aims - We appeal to you to participate in the campaign “The Family Law, 20 Years Barakat”. This campaign is a part of the struggle which started as one of the first projects proposed to the National Assembly and which is still topical. Repealing this law is still a strong demand in Algeria....The campaign, starting in 2003 and continuing in 2004 could take different forms but the goal remains the repeal of the Family Law. Hopefully that clarifies their aims. I did a little tidying of the article to try to improve some of the wording, hopefully it reads a little better now. If there are any particular passages that remain an issue, please let me know. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, this seems to be good to go now. Everymorning (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)