Template:Did you know nominations/Rape during the Congo civil wars
- 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) 14:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Rape during the Congo civil wars[edit]
- ... that the mass rapes during the Congo civil wars were described as a "a war within a war"?
Created/expanded by Darkness Shines (talk). Self nominated at 10:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC).
New enough (moved from mainspace 15 June, nom 15 June), and long enough. The hook is appropriate, and is referenced to offline citation #3, and online citation #4. The online citation says "the war within the war" but does not say "a war within a war". So I accept AGF that the offline citation contains the phrase "a war within a war", which is presented as a quotation in the hook. No problems with disambig links or with access to external links. Images in article are free. The article text is objective and neutral, and is fully referenced. Spot checks for sources of copyvio and close paraphrasing revealed none. Issue: The QPQ is insufficient, and had to be re-done by other editors. This self-nom is capable of providing a full QPQ. Thank you for this careful and important article. If the above issue can be resolved, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- My QPQ was fine. And having looked over it, no, I do not do bureaucracy. Either approve it or not, I do not give a shite. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply, Darkness Shines. This is not about whether I personally want you to do bureaucracy or not. It's partly about the reason why nominators are asked to do QPQs. It's also about whether this nomination will be pulled from the queue after I pass it. I would like a second opinion on this, please, BlueMoonset? Gatoclass? Yoninah? --Storye book (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I did my QPQ, it was fine. No copyvios, hook cited, length fine. That is all I need do. Just because someone came along and says I have to do it in a certain way does not invalidate what I did, it was fine. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Darkness Shines, all of your DYK reviews need to include information such as "no copyvios, hook cited, length fine", and all the rest of the checks (new, neutral, image if present, etc.). It's not enough to give the answer. The quid pro quo process—and indeed any review—should include what you checked along with the result, and this helps the people who later promote the hook to prep and then to queue. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Tough, if I write GTG then it is. And anyone doubting my word, or that I have checked the article for all that crap can take a running jump. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- There are too many people reviewing here for anyone to remember who may or may not be reliable, and plenty of people make mistakes. I've lost count of the DYK reviews that said GTG and the articles or hooks had major issues. You've already spent more time demanding trust than it would have taken to write a full review. GTG no longer cuts it at DYK, and if you're going to continue participating here, you'll need to note which facets were done when writing your review. I'd be sorry to lose you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- You have already lost me, I withdraw this nomination. And I will not bother the petty bureaucrats anymore. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- There are too many people reviewing here for anyone to remember who may or may not be reliable, and plenty of people make mistakes. I've lost count of the DYK reviews that said GTG and the articles or hooks had major issues. You've already spent more time demanding trust than it would have taken to write a full review. GTG no longer cuts it at DYK, and if you're going to continue participating here, you'll need to note which facets were done when writing your review. I'd be sorry to lose you. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Tough, if I write GTG then it is. And anyone doubting my word, or that I have checked the article for all that crap can take a running jump. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Darkness Shines, all of your DYK reviews need to include information such as "no copyvios, hook cited, length fine", and all the rest of the checks (new, neutral, image if present, etc.). It's not enough to give the answer. The quid pro quo process—and indeed any review—should include what you checked along with the result, and this helps the people who later promote the hook to prep and then to queue. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I did my QPQ, it was fine. No copyvios, hook cited, length fine. That is all I need do. Just because someone came along and says I have to do it in a certain way does not invalidate what I did, it was fine. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
