- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Created/expanded by The Egyptian Liberal (talk). Self nom at 10:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- The artwork is great, the article needs a little work where the language is somewhat confusing, such as these (confusing part in bold face):
- "In addition to his parents, Nady has cited his childhood and upbringing in the 10th of Ramadan City as an early influence in becoming an artist."
- 10th of Ramadan City is like the 6th of October City. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- "As a child, he was an avid reader of comic books and magazines and he would occasionally create comic stories about his relatives while he put them to drawing and designed the characters."
- "As a child, he was an avid reader of comic books and magazines and he would occasionally create comic stories about his relatives; using them to create characters and their likeness to draw those characters" Is this better? . -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I am not able to read the Arabic sources and did find some plagiarism from the English ones, though it had already been fixed because I had thought the writing weak in the first place, so there is no more English plagiarism that I know of and the rest will be translated, so hard to say what constitutes "plagiarism" there. But from the English sources, some of the most interesting material is not included in the article. Just because a strong point of view is expressed elsewhere does not mean it can't be included in the WP article, so long as it's clear you are simply quoting what another person (such as the subject) said.
- I wanted to use this source more to expand the activism section but I was worried about it being 2 POV and I did have a hard time rewording it to be honest (The issue of plagiarism have stopped more interesting articles from being in DYK). I think if you can help me there, we might even be able to get the article to GA cuz that's the only part the is missing to be honest. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also, t he hooks are not nearly as interesting as they could be, imho and are in fact, kind of ho-hum on the interest scale, especially considering the potential. I have already tweaked the two hooks (they were mis-marked, and the style and grammar needed a little tweaking. Here are some new hooks, though the facts would need to be included in the article. The sources and info are there, though:
- — Marrante (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- I was worried about the hook being too POV so I honestly went to the lamest facts :D but your hook are awesome. I like the ALT3 more. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with POV, to tell the truth, is that a lot of people, especially young people, don't know the difference between fact and opinion. This is the result of much muddying of the waters, where opinions are stated as facts and facts are determined to be either left-wing and right-wing, depending on whether or not one likes a particular fact or not. Facts are neither left-wing nor right-wing, conservative nor liberal. They are simply facts, they are objective truths, like the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. You may wish it were the other way around, but your opinion of the fact does not change or characterize the fact. The subject of an article may state an opinion. This is POV, but it's HIS point of view. To then write that he said "X" is a statement of fact. Person Y did, in fact, state "X". However, to write, "Person Y courageously said X" would be POV because you'd be characterizing what he'd said and not just the fact that he'd said it. This is not proper on WP. But to merely state that "Person X said/did Y" is a statement of fact and therefore perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia, even if some people don't like what that person/group said or did. Another example is this: You may not write, "Nazism is wrong" but you may write, "Person X said, 'Nazism is wrong'." So, all that Nady said can be included in the article. It's about HIM and a description of what he thinks is properly included in an encyclopedic article about him, provided you keep your opinion of him/his remarks out of it. I will have a look at the other questions in a bit. Marrante (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- To be sure, How about I write it on your talk page and you can tell me if it ok? At east then it will be the opinion of 2 editors. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Looking better, but there are still 2 refs that have no dates or access dates, publishing info, etc. Could you fix those please? They are Arabic sources, so while I can add an access date, you can flesh the ref out properly. Your comment about the "no plagiarism" rule is somewhat worrying. This should be a no-brainer. Plagiarism is wrong and unethical. If you want to quote someone, make it clear that you're quoting with quotation marks and a reference. Otherwise, it's theft. Someone else wrote it, so that person and no one else deserves the credit, praise (or condemnation) for the writing. Read the source, think about it, let it percolate in your mind and then spit it out in your own words. You will (or should) coalesce the information better if you read it all, then think about it and then go to writing, referring back to the original like notes to make sure you get your facts right and then put the reference to the original there so an enterprising reader who wants to read more background (or check what you wrote) can do so. Once these little things are fixed / cleared up (I need some sort of assurance re: the plagiarism question), then we'll be good to go with ALT3. Marrante (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- The refs issues have been fixed. My comment about plagiarism was referring to an incident where me and an editor debated for like a month about the rewording of a sentence "X is a member of Y since Z"; She claimed the it was plagiarism and I stated the fact the there is noway to reword it. By the time we saw eye to eye, the window for DYK had passed :-) It was a great article too. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Add'l: I just tweaked the alt copy for the image. It was unnecessarily wordy. Marrante (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- It looks better now, thanks :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
This article is good to go, AGF on the Arabic refs. Please use ALT3 for the hook! Marrante (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)