Template:Did you know nominations/The Art of Sanctions

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 Yoninah (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Numerous unaddressed "citation needed" tags, no response from nominator

The Art of Sanctions

(

)

... that the sanction is an art and its efficiency depend on the manipulations of the policy makers according to Richard Nephew's new book, The Art of Sanctions?
- ALT1:... that The Art of Sanctions is a book that, written by Richard Nephew, expose the variables which influence to sanctions regime?
- ALT2:... that Richard Nephew, a former U.S. sanction expert, shares his experiences about the using of sanctions against a target in his book which named The Art of Sanctions?
- ALT3:... that achieving to the foreign policy aims via sanctions against a target has a manner and Richard Nephew, an US sanction's expert, shares his experience with you in The Art of Sanctions?

Comment: Hi dear admin, I just expanded the Article since 22 July 2019. The creator of page is someone else. I used the first time, 22 July 2019, that I had started to expanding the article for the main DYK nominations page. I hope you accept my interesting nomination.

5x expanded by Forest90 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC).

Article has been expanded fivefold (90 words -> 590 words). The user apparently has just 2 DYK nominations, so no QPQ required. AGF on Persian sources, but I'm not sure what's the status of sources like Mehr News Agency whether they are considered reliable. Atleast some of the Persian language sources seem duplicate to other sources. There are two "verification needed" tags which should be fixed. Not quite yet there. --Pudeo (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Forest90:, I have read this article. It is interesting, but it needs a bit more work to make the meaning clearer. I just placed some tags saying "clarification needed", and another editor had already placed some too. If you look at the article in Edit mode, you can see the questions we have about the meaning.

I can also see that in some parts of the article, the sentences and parts of sentences are the same as in some of the sources and in this website [1] about the book. It is better to try to write sentences a bit differently, otherwise there could be a problem with Wikipedia policies about WP:COPYVIO, WP:PLAGIARISM or WP:PARAPHRASE. I understand that it is extra difficult to choose a different way of saying something in another language.

The article needs some work on meaning and grammar. I saw on your User Talk page that someone has helped you fix problems in another article. Could you maybe ask them to help you with this article too? Sometimes the Guild of Copy Editors can help, but if some of the problems are about translating from another language, or explaining in English something you are thinking, or have a source about, in your language, it really helps to have someone else who knows your language and can help with putting what you want to say into English. Then, after that, if there are any little things to fix, the copy editors could help. I hope this is helpful. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the nominator hasn't been active in over a month, and hasn't edited the article since nominating it back in July. The article appears to have received some kind of copyedit, but unless the other issues have been addressed or another editor decides to adopt this, then sadly the nomination is now marked for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)