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 Yoninah (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by MagicatthemovieS (talk). Self-nominated at 01:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC).
The article was promoted to GA on February 6, 2019. It is long enough and neutral in content. The image is clearly visible at size and holds the proper license. However, the hook is not neutral and lacks nuance. There are plenty of characters left to allow the addition of some explanation of her stance. Something about if and how sharia law applies to non-muslims should be added. QPQ also requires completion. I will return for a re-review when these are addressed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@MagicatthemovieS: Please respond here so we can keep the conversation in one place. The hook is good now. Are you ok with my copy edits? WP:QPQ is one of the requirements of DYK nominations for experienced editors like yourself. You must review another DYK nomination to assist the project.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I strongly object to the phrasing and framing of this hook, including the word "law" with sharia; it implies something that is not true. It's overly simplistic and creates possible BLP implications which are inappropriate for a biographical DYK. I suggest we find a more meaningful and less controversial hook. How about, ... that the Muslim feminist activist Linda Sarsour(pictured) has been involved in a number of protests against American President Donald Trump? That is neutral, accurate and doesn't create implications which shouldn't exist. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it needs a different hook. Sarsour's stance on Sharia Law is just a talking point of conservative critics. It has very little to do with her career or activism. There are lots of other interesting things about Sarsour that would make better (and less partisan) hooks. Kaldari (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I just realized that I did not complete a COPYVIO check. Earwig flags several copyright violations.[4] Also, NorthBySouthBaranof and Kaldari are right. This hook is not neutral. I should have gone with my first instinct and rejected it outright. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@MagicatthemovieS: The original hook has been struck per concerns raised above; please suggest new hooks and/or respond to NorthByTheSouthBaranof's suggestion. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 10:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@MagicatthemovieS: Please respond to the above concerns, and propose a new hook, If you are unable to respond within the next three days, this nomination will be marked for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 08:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
It sounds a lot more neutral, but due to the sensitivity of the topic I'm uncomfortable participating in this nomination any further, as I only intended to ping the nominator due to a lack of response from them. Leaving the rest to the original reviewer Coffeeandcrumbs. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 11:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@MagicatthemovieS: This still fails WP:DYKHOOK which states hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. Support of Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions is a very controversial stance. We cannot unduly focus on negative aspects of living individuals. If you would like I can suggest some new hooks and allow a new editor to review them. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@MagicatthemovieS: No claim about her controversial views will likely appear as neutral in a DYK hook without including a paragraph for context. May I suggest you focus on something she actively did and not about something she said. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
You also must rephrase the portions of the article flagged in this Earwig's report to reduce the close paraphrasing. In general I have issues with the GA review which I have begun discussing with the GA reviewer on their talk page. Earwig's flags an unusually large number of lengthy quotes in the article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 09:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: I removed several quotes from the article. Why must I mention the 2017 Women's March? Why can't I mention that Sarsour is a Muslim?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
@MagicatthemovieS: You must include the 2017 Women's March because Sarsour was also a leader in that march and it was bigger! About ten times bigger! There is no reasonable excuse to emphasis the 2019 march and not include the 2017 march unless you are intentionally trying to draw a correlation between Sarsour's Muslim faith and her work in organizing the 2019 event. Which brings us to why you can't mention that she is a Muslim. This is because the fact she is a Muslim is not essential to understanding this hook. Again, this is unless you are trying to imply some connection between Islam and the Women's March? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: The [famous poster for the 2017 Women's March] depicts a Muslim woman, and the progressive movement as a whole is very Muslim-friendly. I do think that there is a deep connection between Islam and the Woman's March. I added mention of the 2017 Women's March to the hook. May I resore the mention of Sarosur's religious faith?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
I definitely wouldn't connect the Women's March with Islam. However, the subject's own independent activism certainly includes advocacy for American Muslims (recognizing holidays, civil rights issues, etc.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@MagicatthemovieS: I have copied the hook here again so there is no confusion to the promoter. This hook is fine and acceptable.
Is there anything that can be done about this, this, this, and this --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: I do not believe that quoting people is a form of copyright violation, however, because I want this DYK approved, I addressed your concerns.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
@MagicatthemovieS: Thank you for reducing the overquotation. You need to complete the QPQ requirement before I can pass this nomination. Please understand, I am only going through the checklist for reviewing DYK nominations.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Overall: Promoted to Good Article status on February 6, 2019. Long enough. No NPOV or COPYVIO issues. EARWIG's flags a lot but they mostly quotes and proper nouns. The image is used in the article, has a proper license on Commons, and clear at 100px. QPQ is not necessary as the nominator has only three DYK credits. ALT 1 is cited, neutral, and interesting. ------ Coffeeandcrumbs 10:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't understand what's hooky about ALT1. Especially if it runs without the image. The hook interest seems to be on the two Women's Marches, not on the subject. What's the problem with saying "the Muslim woman activist"? Yoninah (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
This is a very controversial subject. But I am completely exhausted with this. Pointing out that she is Muslim and an organizer of the 2019 Women's March is the exact ploy used against her by the far-right during the lead up to the 2019 Women's March. Please read the second paragraph of 2019 Women's March. And perhaps Wikieditor19920 can explain.
@Yoninah: If the hook is not interesting without the photo. Maybe you should just wait until you can run the photo at the same time.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: so are you saying that this hook is the tamest thing we can say about her, blp-wise? Yoninah (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Exactly!--- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
OK. Restoring your tick for ALT1a. Yoninah (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
The article was promoted to GA on February 6, 2019. It is long enough and neutral in content. The image is clearly visible at size and holds the proper license. However, the hook is not neutral and lacks nuance. There are plenty of characters left to allow the addition of some explanation of her stance. Something about if and how sharia law applies to non-muslims should be added. QPQ also requires completion. I will return for a re-review when these are addressed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I just realized that I did not complete a COPYVIO check. Earwig flags several copyright violations.[4] Also, NorthBySouthBaranof and Kaldari are right. This hook is not neutral. I should have gone with my first instinct and rejected it outright. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Promoted to Good Article status on February 6, 2019. Long enough. No NPOV or COPYVIO issues. EARWIG's flags a lot but they mostly quotes and proper nouns. The image is used in the article, has a proper license on Commons, and clear at 100px. QPQ is not necessary as the nominator has only three DYK credits. ALT 1 is cited, neutral, and interesting. ------ Coffeeandcrumbs 10:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)