Template:Did you know nominations/Uprising in Montenegro
- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Uprising in Montenegro[edit]
- ... that Pavle Đurišić emerged as one of the main commanders of the Uprising in Montenegro?
- Reviewed: Megadeth
Created by Antidiskriminator (talk), Rosiestep (talk), Peacemaker67 (talk). Self nominated at 09:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC).
- G'day, I'm afraid that this article has two significant issues for DYK. Firstly it doesn't meet NPOV, as the sources appear to have been cherrypicked to put the communists in a bad light, and in one case the source doesn't support the material. At least two very good examples of this jumped out at me on a quick read, both of which I have explained on the article talkpage. Secondly, the grammar and spelling is quite poor. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- The spelling and grammar has been addressed through a c/e, and my objection on those grounds is withdrawn. The source/text problem identified on my first look has also been addressed. But there are a number of NPOV issues remaining, which I am attempting to work through. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67 did not prove his NPOV violation accusations. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I have had to start addressing them, as Ad refused to accept there were any issues at all. One of those that needed addressing was that Ad used one local Tito-era source to place the "communist terror" in the lead and main body, but it was (and remains) the only source he has provided for that placement. His placement of that information in the lead and the chronology of the main body made it appear that the "communist terror" occurred before the Italian counter-offensive, not after it. Even on his reading of the academic consensus (highly dubious in my view), this was wrong. He claims it does not matter. This type of approach to reliable sourcing and NPOV is not appropriate for a DYK article, and I recommend against it being used until it can be fully addressed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67 failed to present a single source that directly support his opinion that communist terror in Montenegro began only after the Partisan defeat at Pljevlja in December 1941, nor there is anything particularly POV if the "communist terror" occurred before the Italian counter-offensive, not after it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Your failure to understand why an article should be accurate and NPOV is part of the problem with this article, and underlines the reason it really is not up-to-speed for DYK. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- The burden is on you and you failed to present a single source for your position. Additionally, it is incorrect that I "refused to accept there were any issues at all". I asked another editor to copy edit the article and corrected the mistake in page. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I encourage anyone reviewing this nomination to read the article talk page, and not take Ad's word for it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Full review needed by new reviewer, with close attention paid to neutrality, given the above review and talk page discussion. (Peacemaker67 is now included as a significant editor, so someone new is needed.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I read the article. The DYK hook seems correct and sourced. On the surface, it is an article that has plenty of sources, provides plenty of historic information, and is well-formatted. On the surface, the article makes sense. Unfortunately, it is impossible for a reader like me to confirm some of the NPOV issues because I don't have access to all the sources or historic information. After reading the talk page, it is clear that there are too many issues that need to be addressed. If there were just two or three issues that needed to be addressed through a simple question, it would be easy for a casual reader like me to make a judgement. Unfortunately, that is not the case. As such, I can only equivocate with a "maybe." I know that's not much help at this point. Sorry! Mvblair (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think we need a more experienced reviewer to check this, especially one with a good eye for POV issues. DYK requires neutrality, and if the article truly does not meet this requirement, then it cannot be approved for a main page appearance. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I took a brief look at this, and the material on the talk page, which consists of several unresolved (and now stale) disputes between the nom and another editor, who was also engaged above - no-one else was involved. My feeling is that, unless a historian of Central Europe in the mid-20th Century happens to pass by, I see no prospect of the rest of us determining in some objective way whether there are problems with the accuracy of the text. I'm with Mvblair in that sense. However, I do wonder if we are setting the bar too high. The article is generally closely referenced, the language itself does not obviously present POV issues, and this is DYK, not FA. And one advantage of putting this through is that a short burst on the main page increases the chance that it may attract someone with knowledge of the subject area to check it out and contribute. On balance, I'd say go ahead. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- I get this is not FA, and my apologies for not staying on top of this, I have been working on a FLC that has taken some time to get up to speed, and got distracted. This one peaked my interest because it points to the first FA I developed and co-nominated (Pavle Đurišić). As I said above, the spelling and grammar is a lot better than when it was nominated. I also think the sourcing is better now, I have made a few edits which appear to have stuck, there are still a few issues with cherry-picking of sources, but nothing that should stand in the way of a DYK. I withdraw my opposition. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hamiltonstone makes a great point: the bar cannot be too high. This is clearly a good article, even if there are still, as Peacemaker67 said, "a few issues with cherry-picking of sources." Considering Peacemaker67 was the "main opposition" in what was mostly a civil discussion, I think this nomination should be checked accepted. My only reason for not accepting it was the discussion on the talk pages, which appears to be resolved as of now. Everything else was fine with this DYK. It should be accepted. Mvblair (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus here, so I'm giving it the tick, in hope this will prompt its removal to a prep area :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
