Jump to content

Talk:Toledo Progressive Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 RoySmith talk 14:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
5x expanded by Soman (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 427 past nominations.

Soman (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is new enough, long enough, and cited to reliable sources throughout. No copyright violations detected. QPQ has been done. Hook fact is verifiable, but is dreadfully dull. Attending a United Nations session/event isn't particularly surprising or interesting. UN events around the world routinely attract a global audience of diplomats, political leaders, activists, educators, academics, and even on occasion celebrities. This is not unusual in any way, or surprising. It would be like saying scientist goes to science conference, and in this case is literally political party attends committee meeting (which is what politicians and political activists routinely do). We need a different and more interesting hook. Please ping me when a new hook is proposed.4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're missing the bigger picture here. The 4th Committee is the UN Committee on decolonization, which oversaw many of the transfers from European colonial powers to independent states. Belize as of 1977-1978 was still a British colony, that was at stake was whether Belize would remain a colony, become an independent state or be annexed by Guatemala. The fact that the Guatemalan government sponsored a proxy group in southern Belize, to legitimize its territorial claims, is interesting. There could be other ways to phrase the hook, but this is the key factoid of relevance here. --Soman (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman Sorry about the delayed response. Please ping me when you respond so I know you have replied. In response to your thoughts, I take your point about context. However, the geopolitical context is not at all clear in the hook fact and isn't likely to become clear to a wider audience within a short hook format. If you have to explain the context to get why something is hooky (which you would in this case) than you have failed the WP:DYKINT criteria. This hook is only interesting if one has specialized knowledge about the British colonial empire's activities in South/Central America, the history of Belize and its relationship to Guatemala as well as knowledge about the UN's 4th Committee, and within the specific time period of international politics in 1977-1978. This is way too complicated for the general reader to interpret, and the average person (ie someone like myself) isn't going to connect those dots outside of the article where it can be contextualized. You've got to pick a hook that's interesting and understandable without someone being familiar with the topic area and its context. I'm not seeing how this idea is workable even with modifications, its way too complicated and requires too much background knowledge to be usable. Find something else, because this isn't going to work.4meter4 (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 "... that in the years leading up to the independence of Belize, the Guatemalan government sponsored a small party to legitimize its territorial claims?" --Soman (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: Pinging regarding ALT1. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 I like this alt hook, but I'd like a second opinion from you as to whether or not this is ok with the article's current text. I'm not sure whether to approve this or not. The hook fact is not stated outright with this language in the article text with a supporting inline citation. However, the hook fact is there if the reader were to summarize the gist of the article. My inclination would be to reject this and have the editor state this fact outright with an inline citation, but one could argue the hook fact is already extant in the article in a big picture way across multiple sentences and in different words. What is your read on this? 4meter4 (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: Reading through the article, the current hook is not directly stated in the article. I don't think the current wording works even if it's arguably a summary of the article. There are also issues with the article and hook: the hook directly states that the Guatemalan government sponsored the party, but the article instead claims it was accused of doing so, or was described as doing so, without claiming the claim was actually true. As such, ALT1 may be a WIKIVOICE violation. The best option, in my opinion, would be to modify the hook to be less "definite" and change "territorial claims" to "interests" to better reflect the article (the relevant sentences ARE cited). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman The alt hook is more interesting but there are issues as articulated by myself and Narutolovehinata5. You need to propose an alt hook with a fact stated in the article with an inline citation immediately after the fact, and that fact needs to accurately reflect the sources and not editorialize the content. See the comment by :Narutolovehinata5 for a way forward for modifying the alt hook fact. You will need to also add the hook fact into the article with identical or nearly identical phrasing with an inline citation immediately after that sentence in order for us to use it at DYK. This could be done by adding content with an inline citation to the lead section if you are wanting to go with a more summary type hook. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That hook is 199 characters or just one character below the 200-character limit, so it really needs a trimming. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2B... that Belize's Toledo Progressive Party was accused of being funded by the government of Guatemala? DS (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with ALT2B. --Soman (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4, Soman, and DragonflySixtyseven: The nomination is timing out in four days, so any remaining issues need to be addressed as soon as possible. I see that the article hasn't been edited since March. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're ok with ALT2B, I don't see what would be the problem in the article? 4meter4's initial objection related solely to the hook. --Soman (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alt2B is neutral, verified to an inline citation, and reasonably interesting. This hook can be promoted.4meter4 (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toledo_Progressive_Party&oldid=1289379659"