Template talk:Did you know nominations/Khaled Ali

Moved from main review page 20:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Not so fast with that red X there. I will go in and have another look at this article, but do understand that your credibility on the issue of close paraphrasing is wearing very thin here from overuse, particularly in cases where you insist it exists when it does not. This particular article was written by a new editor who obviously didn't fully understand the rules here. In other words, in this case, you may have some grounds, but don't let it go to your head. Marrante (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing issues were identified a week ago and persist, making the X appropriate. Your attitude, though disappointing from someone who should be more cognizant of our community's pillars, is irrelevant to this review. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The X is not warranted. You have pulled other articles from the queue and brought them back to the DYK Template Talk page and NOT put an X on the article template. This time, you put an X there, but did not restore it to T:TDYK. Why? This article is about an ongoing current event, which, after the Arab Spring, is an issue of world interest and you just yanked it from the queue, marked it with an X and did not transclude on T:TDYK, leaving the template in limbo, where only watchers would be likely to ever see it again. If my attitude is "disappointing," it would be interesting to see how others would characterize yours. But never mind. I am here to help a new editor get his article on the main page. I worked on it last night and some more today and am marking it for re-review. To the next reviewer: please contact me of there are any additional issues. If the original writer or nominator don't respond / address them, I will. This article is highly topical and belongs on the main page and I intend to see it get there. Marrante (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marrante, thank you for making an effort to clean up the close paraphrasing that I did not do a good enough job avoiding. I too would like to continue working on this, with you ideally, to remove the remaining instances. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marrante, if you read what I wrote above, I have already explained why I chose to use the X in this situation: because the article still has paraphrasing issues a week after they were raised. As I'm sure you're aware, topicality is irrelevant to DYK, and there is no requirement that problems be overlooked because the subject is interesting. Furthermore, article improvement is not the purpose of DYK, so articles that continue to fail to meet requirements after several days are routinely archived without being featured. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles have been routinely removed from the queue and brought back here. You pulled Helmut Damerius from the queue twice without marking it with an X and leaving it in limbo. And right now, the oldest date on T:TDYK is January 24. Furthermore, this article was revised YESTERDAY (i.e., within the week). How can you suddenly throw up this "week" timeline when articles you pull from T:DYK/Q or comment on here are often stymied for a week or more? This article is back in play and though you are an administrator, as far as I know, you are not in charge of DYK and have no specific authority to yank articles that others are working on. In fact, the original writer replied to you on March 15, indicating a willingness to address your concerns. Did you work with him? No, there was nothing more from you until Egyptian Liberal wrote on March 23. You replied within minutes to disabuse him of his ignorance about your favorite topic (I'm guessing here, since it's the only thing I've ever seen you address on T:TDYK). How can you complain that nothing was done in a week? Besides that, many articles have had rejection ticks turned into approval after work on the article took a new turn. The article creator and I both want to work to get this article to the main page. And, Nikkimaria, the subject matter is relevant. There's an effort to avoid being too US-centric, to have a variety of topics; DYK is to get the reader to read the new content. This article is very interesting, it's about a subject not well known and is perfect for DYK. The fact that it is also topical was just part of all that. My apologies for having not explained that fully to you before. This article is still in play and is waiting for a re-review. Marrante (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on several counts, but suit yourself. Have you checked all of the sources to ensure that no close paraphrasing remains? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End moved discussion

It would be helpful if in your boilerplate message, you could indicate your comments are the result of spot checks. Also, your last post does not make sense, "Wrong on several counts, but suit yourself." Why would I want to be wrong? Enlighten me. If I'm wrong, tell me where, don't be cryptic. Marrante (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]