Template:Did you know nominations/2022 French protests

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) 23:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

2022 French protests

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

2022 French protests on 16 October

• ... that 2022 French protests (pictured) are labeled as "stiffest challenge" for Emanuel Macron since his re-election? Source: [1]
  • Reviewed: Su Hanchen

Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 15:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC).

•  Reviewing... –LordPeterII (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: - missing
Overall: I've done some copyedits, and I think in that regard it's ready for the main page. I've changed the heading name of the "commentary" section to "analysis", since the other word struck me as odd. Issues that remain are: An undated sentence with a comparison ([...] which is less than the 30% percent previously); I've put a "when" template after it. And ofc, a QPQ is missing. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: Hi, thanks for the comments. Just did the QPQ. I am happy with your changing of the "commentary" section title, but could not find the date for "less than 30%" which I don't think should not be serious for DYK nomination. Mainly because it is supported by a reliable source after all. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Hmm, it wasn't a major issue, but it's a silly thing to have in an article. If we have a statement that something improved or worsened, it only makes sense if we give a timeframe for the comparison. If I were to write "life expectancy in Germany has doubled, compared to before", I can rather think people want to know when that "before" was: The Middle Ages, or the 1990s? ;) Anyway, I followed the link in the Al Jazeera source, and it brought me to the other one where the 30% were written. I put the dates in the article. Since that was the remaining issue, I can

now approve. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)