Template:Did you know nominations/Zero-COVID

Add links
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: rejected by SL93 (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
NPOV concerns.

DYK toolbox

Zero-COVID

(
)
  • ... that only mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan are still pursuing a zero-COVID strategy? Source1: Normile, Dennis (19 November 2021). "'Zero COVID' is getting harder—but China is sticking with it". Science. 374 (6570): 924–924. doi:10.1126/science.acx9657. eISSN 1095-9203. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 34793217.

Source2:"How much longer can China keep up its zero-Covid strategy?". The Guardian. 2022-01-01. Retrieved 2022-01-02.

    • Comment: New article

Created by Novem Linguae (talk), Moxy (talk), Thucydides411 (talk), and Arcahaeoindris (talk). Nominated by Moxy at 16:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC).

  • DYKcheck says that the current version of the article has only '1386 characters (221 words) "readable prose size"'. That falls below the DYK minimum of 1,500 characters.
    @Moxy and Novem Linguae: I am sure that it can readily be expanded to pass the threshold. If and when that happens, please ping me and I will complete the review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    BrownHairedGirl. Thanks to Thucydides411 starting an expansion, we're currently at 524 words, 3536 characters. Feel free to resume your review. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Novem Linguae: that's good news, but I think it will be difficult to review while it is being actively expanded. Please can you or @Thucydides411 ping me when it has stabilised again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    @BrownHairedGirl: I'll ping you once the article is a bit more stable. I'm still adding content. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, @Thucydides411.
    Moxy's correction[1] of the hook fact is welcome, but the fact that the first hook was wrong suggests that the initial nomination was premature. It would be helpful if all 3 editors could review the article before a full DYK review is started. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    Not wrong...some like to list the distinctions of Greater China ....so was amended as so.Moxy- 23:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    The unualified term "China" usually refers to the PRC, not Taiwan. So it was at best misleading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    P.S. Suggest adding myself and Thucydides411 to the nomination, if appropriate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Novem Linguae:: done[2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    ... and I've added the appropriate credit templates, including one for Arcahaeoindris.  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  20:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the current hook is accurate - Macau is still pursuing a zero-covid strategy too, isn't it?[3] —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but that source doesn't appear to say that Macau is still pursing zero-COVID. My quick search for the word Macau didn't indicate anything like that in the vicinity of the word. Can you clarify with a quote? More generally, I agree that we need to tighten up the hook. That is one of the reasons this DYK is on hold. We had one article that said XYZ are the only countries pursuing COVID, but as we expand the article we are finding additional countries. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    The source I linked says "Since the early days of the covid-19 pandemic, China’s aim has been to eliminate the coronavirus entirely from within the mainland’s borders. Hong Kong and Macau have similar strategies." The alternate hook you suggested below seems fine to me. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT1: Proposal for new hook that has no danger of being factually incorrect: ... that places such as China, Hong Kong and Taiwan have pursued a zero-COVID strategy? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Support. New hook seems to correct the issues. ––FormalDude talk 13:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Bloomberg reported this morning that Omicron has ruined Hong Kong's Zero COVID [4]. Zero COVID is just a political slogan and the article gives undue weight to this political angle. CutePeach (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Zero Covid is a ongoing response for COVID-19, so this article can be updated. I think it's ok. Thingofme (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • BrownHairedGirl. Hey there. It's been a week or so. Probably worth taking another look at this. I proposed a new hook above that avoids some of the issues with the first one. Thanks for your help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    Hey BrownHairedGirl. Sorry for the double ping. Just wanted to follow up and see if you had some time to work on this. I think this may be ready to approve using ALT1, but I'll leave that up to your good judgment. Thank you very much. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    Hi @Novem Linguae, and sorry for my slow reply.
    I took a quick look at the article, and it seems that you have all done great work. It now has 4928 words and over 140 references ... so it has grown from being a stub when nominated to something more like B-class. Well done!
    However, that also means that the task of reviewing it for DYK has grown from being a 20-minute task to a whole day's work. And I am sorry to say that I have neither the time nor the inclination to devote a whole day to do, and I won't sign off as reviewed an article which I have not properly scrutinised.
    So I think it's best that I bow out, and someone else does the review. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Thank you for letting us know. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • New review needed per above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 22:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Novem LinguaeMoxyThucydides411Arcahaeoindris, I'm happy to give this a review, but I'm not sure about the hook. It's exceptionally time-sensitive, and this was created weeks ago, and it could be further weeks before it hits the main page. I'm not overthrilled with the proposed ALT1, it's too vague to be interesting. I'm going to give the article a good reading and will see if I can come up with some suggestions, but if anyone else has one, please add! valereee (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT2: The Zero-COVID strategy is predicated on a series of measures, including lookdowns, restrictions on travel, mass testing and contact tracing.Moxy- 14:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

Image eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Review is incomplete - please fill in the "status" field

Re: ALTs. I think you could build a dateproof alt around the fact HK's zero-COVID strategy was being called unsustainable by the end of January 2022. I think you could build one around the fact opponents are calling it unfeasible/unrealistic. valereee (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

valereee, I only see one prior DYK nomination by Moxy, from 2015. Unless you found some that I missed, they would be on their second free DYK for this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, thanks, missed that it wasn't actually nom'd by the other editors. valereee (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

valereee (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  • ALT3: ... that China's zero-COVID strategy sometimes involves testing 5-10 individuals and combining their swabs into one COVID test? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT4: ... that Hong Kong's zero-COVID strategy of strict lockdowns has been called unsustainable and may be on the brink of collapse? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT5: ... that opponents of the zero-COVID strategy worry that it may be unrealistic? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • ALT6: ... that a portion of Canada followed a strict zero-COVID strategy and was called the "Atlantic Bubble"? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Hey valereee. Thanks for taking the time to review this one. I added a bunch of alts just now based on your suggestions and my own re-reading of the article. Feel free to pick the most interesting one and we can coalesce our efforts around that. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Novem Linguae, I think either ALT5 or ALT6 would work -- both are stated as something that happened rather than something that is happening, so we don't have the date issue. I personally prefer ALT5, but I'm open minded! valereee (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
How about ALT6? Slightly more positive than ALT5. Happy to help with next steps, just let me know what you need. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

How about this?

I think it's sufficiently interesting to be a hook, and there's no expiry date on the statement. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Support. Interesting to the reader. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is not a neutral article. Per WP:NPOV, it must represent all significant views, and one vertically significant view I added was deleted. I have added it back but I'm not sure if it will lead to a protracted dispute like in the Chinese government response to COVID-19 page where this page is being brought as proof to "settle the question" about the accuracy of China's statistics. The article is also full of SYNTH as the majority of sources in the China section do not even mention zero COVID. LondonIP (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
pls review Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.Moxy- 15:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article isn't neutral and the editors keep on removing counter views. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Although with multiple experience editors working forward to improve the article, its perhaps best to put this on hold till we are able to deal with the over flow argument from another article. No point in having to deal with explanations of neutrality to editors here as there is currently multiple talks on going how to write about the views at the article mainly affected and notice board. . . Talk:Chinese government response to COVID-19#POV tag.. ...Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Can Chinese academic publications be considered independent on subjects censored by the Chinese government?.--Moxy- 18:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The problem is your refusal to acknowledge there is a POV problem. Most of the coverage this topic gets is critical, yet this article completely elides those sources and their criticism, giving a glowing picture of the policy and its effectiveness. If this problem is fixed, I would fully support this proposal. LondonIP (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
After topic bans we will reviste this.--Moxy- 11:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Given the nomination has stalled over NPOV concerns and it doesn't seem like these concerns will be addressed anytime soon, it doesn't seem like there is any path forward for the nomination at this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Meat puppets have vanished.Moxy- 03:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Zero-COVID&oldid=1076816349"