Template:Did you know nominations/1962 Isly massacre
- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
1962 Isly massacre
- ... that Emanuel Macron recognized the 1962 Isly killings of French citizens in Algeria by French army as a massacare? Source: The Guardian
Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 05:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC).
- Article meets length requirements (barely) and is new enough. Both article and hook are cited, and confirmed hook. Hook is not super "interesting" but the subject material is dark enough that attempting something magazine-y may not be appropriate (the 1962 article mentions the protesters saying they liked it better when occupied under the Nazis in WW2, unironically... but who knows where the author got that quote from, so probably best not to use.). Cited QPQ is not completed yet, but I presume will be by time of promotion, so marking as AGF assuming that the QPQ will be completed. (In case of confusion, I know that the AGF tick is normally used for an offline source for a hook, which isn't the case here; it seems like the best template for "QPQ in progress but incomplete" so using it for that.). SnowFire (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- @SnowFire: where did you see the quote saying protesters said "they liked it better when occupied under the Nazis in WW2"? --Mhhossein talk 03:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- The "Algeria: The Last Ordeal" reference, page 95, right after the quote you already included about a woman saying "we're French" (unlike the Arab Algerians I guess). "To hell with France, I spit on France" a man shouted. "I would rather live under the flag of the Americans or the Nazis", presumably referring to the WW2 period. That said I dunno about including it in the article since it's cited to "a man" and is obviously rather prickly. SnowFire (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- @SnowFire: where did you see the quote saying protesters said "they liked it better when occupied under the Nazis in WW2"? --Mhhossein talk 03:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: Are you going to finish your QPQ review? The nominator responded on the same day but you haven't approved yet. Please either advance the review process or I'm going to pull my approval, which was conditional on the QPQ finishing up (which I thought was for-sure at the time). SnowFire (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
while waiting on the QPQ. SnowFire (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- @SnowFire and Mhhossein: happy to donate a QPQ if necessary :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you theleekycauldron. I am done with the review so my QPQ should now be counted. Although, having done dozens of DYKs so far, this is the first time I am encountering a situation where a user is having such a concrete stance on the 'completed' review requirement for the QPQ to be considered. --Mhhossein talk 11:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @SnowFire and Mhhossein: Hmm, that's interesting. I did some digging through the original proposal for a QPQ (not that specific edit but it should be on the page), and addendums to that proposal, but I couldn't find the requirement that the review be complete at all. The closest corollaries I could find were the requirements that the review not be "check mark", and the Reviewing guide's suggestion to
make sure that review adequately covers all of the DYK criteria just as yours will do
. SnowFire, I could be wrong, but my best guess is that a "complete" review is any review that adequately takes full scope of where an article stands in relation to the DYK criteria at any point in time. So, I'm not sure that a review has to be given final approval or rejection before the QPQ is valid. I'll ping BlueMoonset here, they'd probably know better than I do. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @SnowFire and Mhhossein: Hmm, that's interesting. I did some digging through the original proposal for a QPQ (not that specific edit but it should be on the page), and addendums to that proposal, but I couldn't find the requirement that the review be complete at all. The closest corollaries I could find were the requirements that the review not be "check mark", and the Reviewing guide's suggestion to
- Thank you theleekycauldron. I am done with the review so my QPQ should now be counted. Although, having done dozens of DYKs so far, this is the first time I am encountering a situation where a user is having such a concrete stance on the 'completed' review requirement for the QPQ to be considered. --Mhhossein talk 11:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- @SnowFire and Mhhossein: happy to donate a QPQ if necessary :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
since QPQ is basically finished. Note: I do agree that a QPQ doesn't technically need to be finished, but I do think that expecting that the reviewer be in the process of moving the QPQ forward is reasonable. If the QPQ is stalled waiting on the nominator, it's fine, but when I pulled the approval above, it'd been 5 days with no reply at the other QPQ, making it not entirely clear that this QPQ was going to actually finish, and it wasn't until 7 days later that the nominator moved forward. Anyway, I don't say this to beat up on Mhhossein - life happens - but in the same way, if it's no big deal that there's a delay on completing the QPQ, then it's no big deal if there's a delay on the DYK nom too. SnowFire (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- As long as the QPQ review has covered all of the DYK criteria and an icon has been given, that is sufficient to satisfy the QPQ requirement; it looks to me that Mhhossein did just that in their initial review. It is a great help that almost all reviewers stick around and continue reviewing until the nomination can be given a final tick (or a final rejection), but that isn't required; it's covering all the review steps that matters. (Pinging theleekycauldron and SnowFire as well.) Note that the AGF tick means that the review is fully approved but the hook sourcing is offline or unavailable or otherwise being assumed as adequate assuming good faith, so it shouldn't be used unless you mean to approve the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
