Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Barkhane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Previous issues have never been addressed, including examples of close paraphrasing, and author has instead edited elsewhere in the past week. Regretfully closing this after over a month's inaction.

Operation Barkhane[edit]

Created by Fotoriety (talk). Self nominated at 08:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article is new enough, long enough and, to my judgement, neutrally written. No QPQ needed as it seems to be the first DYK nomination of the author - well done!
I have a few concerns though. Firstly, there are a few examples of close paraphrasing that would benefit from being re-written. The hook itself is one, and another sentence very close to the original in the source is "The French forces will be supplied with 20 helicopters, 200 armoured vehicles, 10 transport aircraft, 6 fighter planes and 3 drones." I think it should not be too big a deal to re-work the prose though. My second concern is about the sources. The news sources are reliable but given the nature of the article I was surprised to not find anything sourced from more official sources, like the French ministry of Defence or Foreign Affairs. I think the article would benefit from nor relying solely on information from news agencies. If it's in French, it's no problem - AGF.
My third concern is the biggest, and here I would appreciate input from other editors as well. The article is about a military operation which has just started, and chances are, that there will be reason to change the article, perhaps radically, relatively soon. In other words, it may not be completely stable? I'd appreciate some thoughts and ideas from the author and other editors on how to handle this.
OK, so these are a few concerns, but I'm sure they can be solved rather easily. Yakikaki (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I will try and focus on it when i have some truly valuable free time, perhaps in the coming days. Thanks for your detailed assessment.Fotoriety (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Fotoriety, it has been 20 days without any further action on this nomination. Are you planning to return to it soon? Please let us know; it would be a shame to have to close it if you don't continue. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, i have just been too busy to give it the time it needs and deserves.Fotoriety (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Previous issues have never been addressed, including examples of close paraphrasing, and author has instead edited elsewhere in the past week. Regretfully closing this after over a month's inaction. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)