- The following discussion 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 Mentoz86 (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Anwar Bannud
edit- ... that former Syrian chief-of-staff, Anwar Bannud, was the only Syrian officer to reach a rank of colonel under the French mandate?
- Reviewed: John Hilliard (artist)
Created/expanded by Zozo2kx (talk), Al Ameer son (talk). Nominated by Zozo2kx (talk) at 05:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I have done none of the normal DYK checks, because I found a problem in the earlier step of assessing the article against the general encyclopoedic criteria — that it has only one source.- The article is referenced entirely to two books by the journalist and historian Sami Moubayed. He appears to be a prominent writer on Syrian topics, and has strong academic credentials ... but he is only one person. Multiple sources are preferable, both for verification of the facts asserted and to provide a broader range of perspectives. I have tagged the article with {{onesource}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hello BHG, thank you for the review and the c/e to the lead. There are two issues with your review:
- First, there is nothing in the DYK guidelines that specifies that articles must be sourced to more than one source; it simply says that it must well-sourced to RS, it doesn't specify how many. What I understand from your comment, is that you are not challenging the reliability of Moubayed's books, which means there is no basis in the DYK guidelines (AFAICT, and please correct me if I'm wrong) for your .
- Second, Syria is a hardly well-covered area in English academic literature, let alone military figures who didn't feature prominently in wars or such. And Moubayed's references are of the few reliable sources we have in English. I can find other sources in snippets and such about the major details of his appointment or other notable events (and I have added two such sources), but I prefer to place sources that discuss the subject in detail, and unfortunately Moubayed is all I have at the moment.
- At any rate, I'm gonna raise this at the DYK:Talk because there doesn't seem to be a consensus about whether articles have to be sourced to many different sources and people seem to interpret that based on their own opinions rather than a specific guideline (I have seen at least 2 other cases, this past week alone). Yazan (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Zozo2k, the nominations rules at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Reviewing_guide#Review_the_article.28s.29 are quite clear that "To qualify for DYK, an article needs to meet several special criteria, 'in addition to being checked for normal encylopedic issues" (emphasis added by me).
- The requirement for multiple source for articles is a long-standing general principle on wikipedia. DYK would have no business setting it aside, and it would be perverse to relax verifiability standards only for articles which are to be linked from the front page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- With your permission, I'm gonna copy your reply to the DYK:TALK general discussion, so we can focus on this nomination here.
- I added two other different references to the article. Admittedly, it is still largely based on Moubayed's work, but this is supposed to be a start, and I think it's a solid start. Do let me know if that solves the problem so we can move on with this particular nomination. Otherwise, we'll have to wait for the discussion on DYK:Talk. Thanks again. Yazan (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- You didn't seek my permission before reposting, just mentioned it after the fact. As noted on my talk, please do not repost my comments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies again for re-posting your comments without permission. I only thought they'd be relevant to the general discussion.At any rate, the article now has 4 different sources, I hope that that satisfies the issue of a single source and you can continue with your review. Thank you. Yazan (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- You didn't seek my permission before reposting, just mentioned it after the fact. As noted on my talk, please do not repost my comments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
. Good to go. Length fine, newness fine. I was able to check most frequently used source, and the facts cited check out, with no sign of copyvio or close paraphrasing. AGF on the other sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
