Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Yemen
- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Corruption in Yemen
[edit]... that the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace ruled Yemen's government was more likely to topple from corruption than Al-QaedaALT1:... that a UN panel believed that Yemen's former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, had illicitly accumulated up to $60 billion during his rule?- ALT2:... that only about a tenth of an intended $4.7 billion in aid to Yemen reached its destination?
ALT3:... that Yemen’s Ministry of Social and Labor Affairs created more cumbersome obstacles for human-rights groups to be recognized?ALT4:... that a Yemeni medical professional bore witness to graft on a daily basis?
- Reviewed: Mound Landing, Mississippi
Created by DaltonCastle (talk). Self-nominated at 22:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC).
This article is new enough and long enough. I am approving ALT1, - the other hooks may be all right but I have not checked them. The article gives a depressing view of Yemen today. It is neutral and I detected no policy issues, Earwig's 17.4% being largely due to quotations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, ALT2 is better and I have struck the other hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah, and DaltonCastle: (with apologies to Cwm for three pings in near as many minutes): come on, folks, this is not in a state to go on the main page. The article begins "Corruption in Yemen is a highly serious problem. Yemen is the most corrupt country in the Gulf region.", and this is sourced to a blog. Hosted on the world bank website, but still a blog. Not to mention the issues with saying "highly serious." The same blog source is used a number of times through the article. If this article wants to actually comply with NPOV, it needs to do one of two things: restrict itself to describing incidents of corruption, or alternatively incorporate sufficient heavyweight sourcing to make its analytical and comparative claims compliant with WP:DUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanamonde93 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Yoninah, DaltonCastle, and Vanamonde93: The pings did not get through, perhaps because Vanamonde failed to sign the post, so I have repinged the others. I certainly considered the World Bank to be a reliable source. It's going to be very difficult for DaltonCastle to write these articles if they are not allowed to be sourced to any commentary. Corruption is insidious and the facts are not obvious. Investigative journalists find things out and the information ends up in columns in respected newspapers, or blogs of this sort which is the online equivalent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hm, yes, I guess I forgot that. My issue is not with the World Bank: my issue is with a) the single source, and b) with the fact that it is a blog, ie has little to no editorial oversight. It is the equivalent to the Op-Ed section of a newspaper: which we do not usually treat as a reliable source. Moreover, there are many kinds of commentary: saying something like "Yemen is the most corrupt country in XYZ" requires sources a lot weightier than saying, for instance, "there have been numerous publicized incidents of corruption in Yemen". Vanamonde (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please see my followup review on Corruption in Ecuador. This article, too, suffers from POV. It goes in with guns blazing about corruption in Yemen without giving any indication to the contrary. Yoninah (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It has been over three weeks without a response, and the issues remain as noted above, including POV issues. Last call for action by the nominator, whose talk page has been pinged. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry all for tardiness. I haven't been able to find the time to make major revisions in some time. I am unsure of when I will be able to do this in a timely fashion. I'll respectfully withdraw the nomination since its not fair to you all to keep you waiting, and I just don't foresee that I will finish this soon. Nonetheless, I will go through the page and make improvements at my discretion. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hm, yes, I guess I forgot that. My issue is not with the World Bank: my issue is with a) the single source, and b) with the fact that it is a blog, ie has little to no editorial oversight. It is the equivalent to the Op-Ed section of a newspaper: which we do not usually treat as a reliable source. Moreover, there are many kinds of commentary: saying something like "Yemen is the most corrupt country in XYZ" requires sources a lot weightier than saying, for instance, "there have been numerous publicized incidents of corruption in Yemen". Vanamonde (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Yoninah, DaltonCastle, and Vanamonde93: The pings did not get through, perhaps because Vanamonde failed to sign the post, so I have repinged the others. I certainly considered the World Bank to be a reliable source. It's going to be very difficult for DaltonCastle to write these articles if they are not allowed to be sourced to any commentary. Corruption is insidious and the facts are not obvious. Investigative journalists find things out and the information ends up in columns in respected newspapers, or blogs of this sort which is the online equivalent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
