Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Azraq refugee camp"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Wasted Time R (response) |
imported>Owlsmcgee (approved DYK) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DYKsubpage | {{DYKsubpage | ||
|monthyear=March 2016 | |monthyear=March 2016 | ||
− | |passed= | + | |passed=yes |
|2= | |2= | ||
{{DYK conditions}} | {{DYK conditions}} | ||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:* [[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] This article is new, long enough, no copyvio, and QPQ is good. But the article has some problems with NPOV and tone. For example, "Once the camp was open for a while it was clear that something was amiss" is pretty strong editorializing; there's also a lot of "only" language, ie, "the Azraq refugee camp still had only around 18,500 refugees." Can you run through the article to adjust the tone to be more in line with [[WP:NPOV]]? --[[User:Owlsmcgee|Owlsmcgee]] ([[User talk:Owlsmcgee|talk]]) 23:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | :* [[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] This article is new, long enough, no copyvio, and QPQ is good. But the article has some problems with NPOV and tone. For example, "Once the camp was open for a while it was clear that something was amiss" is pretty strong editorializing; there's also a lot of "only" language, ie, "the Azraq refugee camp still had only around 18,500 refugees." Can you run through the article to adjust the tone to be more in line with [[WP:NPOV]]? --[[User:Owlsmcgee|Owlsmcgee]] ([[User talk:Owlsmcgee|talk]]) 23:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC) | ||
::* Thanks for doing the review. I've replaced the sentence you objected to and I've added something about a new electricity project coming this year. But I don't see a reason to take out usages of "only". That the camp doesn't have nearly as many refugees as planned for, despite no shortage of refugees from the war, is a simple objective fact and the central point of interest for nearly every news story about the camp after the time of its opening. A neutral treatment in the article has to reflect that. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 11:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC) | ::* Thanks for doing the review. I've replaced the sentence you objected to and I've added something about a new electricity project coming this year. But I don't see a reason to take out usages of "only". That the camp doesn't have nearly as many refugees as planned for, despite no shortage of refugees from the war, is a simple objective fact and the central point of interest for nearly every news story about the camp after the time of its opening. A neutral treatment in the article has to reflect that. [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] ([[User talk:Wasted Time R|talk]]) 11:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC) | ||
+ | :::[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] Great! Makes sense. It's approved -- great work. --[[User:Owlsmcgee|Owlsmcgee]] ([[User talk:Owlsmcgee|talk]]) 00:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC) | ||
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
Revision as of 00:20, 15 March 2016
{{subst:DYK top|passed=yes|monthyear=March 2016}}
DYK toolbox |
---|
Azraq refugee camp
- ... that despite the enormity of the Syrian refugee crisis, the Azraq refugee camp in Jordan that is meant to house them has remained largely empty since its opening in 2014?
Created by Wasted Time R (talk). Self-nominated at 15:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC).
This article is new, long enough, no copyvio, and QPQ is good. But the article has some problems with NPOV and tone. For example, "Once the camp was open for a while it was clear that something was amiss" is pretty strong editorializing; there's also a lot of "only" language, ie, "the Azraq refugee camp still had only around 18,500 refugees." Can you run through the article to adjust the tone to be more in line with WP:NPOV? --Owlsmcgee (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing the review. I've replaced the sentence you objected to and I've added something about a new electricity project coming this year. But I don't see a reason to take out usages of "only". That the camp doesn't have nearly as many refugees as planned for, despite no shortage of refugees from the war, is a simple objective fact and the central point of interest for nearly every news story about the camp after the time of its opening. A neutral treatment in the article has to reflect that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)