Template:Did you know nominations/Zapad 2009

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: promoted by Launchballer talk 22:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Zapad 2009

(

)

Landing craft Mordowija 782 during Zapad 2009

... that Russian and Belarussian Zapad 2009 military exercise about repelling a NATO attack might have included simulation of nuclear strikes? Source: http://css.ethz.ch/en/services/digital-library/articles/article.html/109702 or https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/6480227/Russia-simulates-nuclear-attack-on-Poland.html
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Hill (basketball)/DYK2

5x expanded by Piotrus (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 507 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC).

PS. I forgot to mention - there are plenty of images available for this hook. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Zapad_2009 --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

You'll want to add one of these to the nom for consideration.--Laun chba ller 19:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I am not sure how to do it post-nom. But I'd suggest File:Zapad-2009 military exercises.jpg. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

By finding another nom that does it successfully and adapting it. I'll leave it to you to add a caption and will call for a reviewer.--Laun chba ller 15:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Caption: "Landing craft Mordowija 782 during Zapad 2009". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Added.--Laun chba ller 23:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

New enough (5x expansion), long enough, well-written. Image is appropriately licensed as far as I can determine. QPQ is done. The hook is interesting and supported by an inline citation but not supported in its current format by what is written in the article. The article is a bit ambiguous on this point. On the one hand it asserts that "[...] it also simulated an amphibious landing in Poland, as well as - and most controversially - a nuclear attack against Poland (hitting Warsaw)." In my reading, this is a claim that the exercise did in fact contain such a simulation. Later, however, it is stated that "Other sources noted that the exercise involved nuclear-capable ballistic missiles (Iskander), but not necessarily a simulation of a nuclear attack on another country." I think this could be easily solved by re-phrasing the first sentence, but it should be resolved before I give the green light. Otherwise all criteria are fulfilled. Yakikaki (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Yakikaki: Can I trouble you to suggest an alt hook with a revised wording that I can then review and adopt? I am not sure what exact minor wording change you suggest, but I am pretty sure I'd be fine with it and I'd propose it myself if I wasn't too tired to figure it out myself now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Alt 1a ... that Russian and Belarussian Zapad 2009 military exercise about repelling a NATO attack might have included simulated nuclear strikes on another country?

@Piotrus and Yakikaki: thoughts? --evrik ^(talk) 17:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the original hook, and Alt 1a doesn't solve the problem. The issue, which I think is very easily fixed, is that the article isn't clear on the point whether it might have included a simulated nuclear strikes on another country, or whether it in fact did. That needs to be clarified. I can then greenlight it. Yakikaki (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yakikaki, The article cites the sources; some of which say this happened and some which are more cautious. Not sure how to word it better than what we already have, both in the hook and in the article. If you think you have a better wording, be bold. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I fixed it for you. You'll need another reviewer to do the review again, though. Yakikaki (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe User:Evrik would like to do this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I will approve the original hook. I can't approve my hook, but will leave that for the promoter. User:Evrik 15:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

With sources disagreeing, I don't think we should be front paging one or the other. I'd like to see a completely different hook.--Laun chba ller 11:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus, Yakikaki, and Evrik: see the above comment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

AirshipJungleman29, what is needed of me? --evrik ^(talk) 01:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You are involved in the nomination... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not see what is wrong with the hook. The wording "might have" explicitly reflects the fact that sources are not agreeing on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus. The hook is neutral, and good. Yakikaki (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll withdraw my objection then, but I note that of the six sources next to that claim, all four of the English-language sources are unequivocal that it did happen.--Laun chba ller 12:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, @Launchballer: did you have a suggested tweak to the hook? --evrik ^(talk) 14:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Restoring the tick. --evrik ^(talk) 14:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)