Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Bargain (humanitarian reform)

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Grand Bargain (humanitarian reform)

(
)
Humanitarian relief cargo
Humanitarian relief cargo

Created by CT55555 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC).

  • Opinion pieces are not reliable sources, the article title needs to be linked in the hook, and the picture is only tangentially related to the topic and should not be used. (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi User:Buidhe Thanks for the speedy review and the clarity (also good point about the opinion piece, you prompted me to improve the actual article too). I've used a better source. P.S. fair point about the picture
Here's a
ALT image: (Also I recognize that it's still somewhat tangential, we're talking about an agreement, so there is no tangible image)
No Lost Generation at World Humanitarian Summit Istanbul.jpg
  • i'll review this. I'll probably assess it tonight and write it up here tomorrow. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: You have 2 DYKs so far, so you are exempt from doing a QPQ. This is an interesting and informative article, but there are several issues:

  • (1) ALT1 needs improvement: commitment by whom?
  • (2) I cannot see the contents of ALT1 in the source you have given with the hook (have I missed something?), and I cannot see that same information written out in the main text of the article.
  • (3) Re the first sentence of Focus areas section: Should the first sentence start "The Grand Bargain of 2016", or does it refer to the Grand Bargain including developments 2016-2020?
  • (4) The logo image that you have given us here appears to be a redirect to another image that includes the logo. I'm not sure whether that logo would get a free licence since it includes an original artwork design which may be copyrighted. Even if a logo is on a free licence, I need to see that picture on a filepage with a specific logo licence. We can only use free images in DYK.

This review has not yet been completed (see my message above).

Note to myself: It's cited throughout, but I still need to check quality of sources. This may take more than one day. Storye book (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

1 - commitments by the majority of donors who fund global humanitarian response (i.e. the governments of USA, UK, Germany, etc etc). Obviously that makes for a very long hook. Suggested

::ALT2 ... that despite 2016 commitments by many governments to channel 25% of humanitarian aid through local aid organizations, only 2% went to them?

  • The content is now OK, but I don't believe that such a long link would be acceptable. How about we just link "2016 commitments"? Storye book (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I find that agreeable (not withstanding comments below that will lead to other changes) CT55555 (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
2 The actual fact is contained within the fourth line of this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Bargain_(humanitarian_reform)#Progress_towards_commitments_and_critique_in_the_2020s
  • All I can find is "the percentage of funding going to local organizations between 2016 and 2020 actually reduced from 3.5% to 2.1%." That doesn't mention 25%, and 2.1% is not the same as 2%. When you consider the millions of dollars involved, 0.1% counts. I did not find the exact hook details in the source, either. Please understand that I'm not trying to be difficult here; we have to get this right. If a hook does not match up exactly with the text of the article or with the sources, then that hook will not get promoted to DYK.
You are correct to note that I rounded it off. I'm agreeable to change it to 2.1%. The 25% part is under "focus area" and it's bullet point #2. Here's ALT3 that considers the points here and above, I think that deals with the point you made above, but am not certain:
ALT3 ... that despite 2016 commitments to channel 25% of humanitarian aid through local aid organizations, only 2.1% went to them? CT55555 (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
3 In 2016 they agreed (to do something over the next ~5 years) so I think it's open to debate. I don't fully understand the question, but I think it could be argued either way.
  • Again, the article needs to be clear about what years you are talking about. Could you start the text of the section: "Between 2016 and 2021 the Grand Bargain had 51 ..."?
The 2.1% was what happened in 2020. So the commitment was made in 2016 and there's several ways it could be measured, but the way it is being measured here (and everywhere) is what the number was for 2020. So with that in mind, here's an ALT4

::::ALT4 ... that despite 2016 commitments to channel 25% of humanitarian aid through local aid organizations, only 2.1% of 2020 funding went to them? CT55555 (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

4 The logo isn't great either way, I was honestly just trying to find a logo so that it appeared first on the list. Maybe I'm trying too hard and we should drop the image. CT55555 (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • OK, thank you. The logo image is a redirect, and I cannot find the source of that redirect. The logo is most likely to be copyvio since it is an original artwork, but it could possibly have been released as a free-use image, or there may be a government logo copyright loophole. I cannot remove it to another place because if I try to copy it, it disappears. So (anyone who is reading this) please do not remove the logo image until I can get it checked. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Update about the logo image: The logo has now been checked by an administrator, and I am told that the image is fine as a free-image. There has been a discussion about this image previously, and it was decided to keep the image. I understand that it is OK to use this image at DYK, in that case. Storye book (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I shall be away from my pc for a while, will answer other questions later. Storye book (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Updates:
  • Re my point (1) above, I can now see the details of the hook in the article, and the source is the Developments Initiative site. Thank you, CT55555
  • I still think that the link-title in the hook is unnecessarily long, and that it would look odd in the DYK box on the front page. I still think that you could just link "2015 commitments" and leave the rest of the hook unchanged and unlinked. The total wording of ALT4 is fine as it now stands, and I am not asking you to remove any words.
  • As I see it, there are three two issues remaining to deal with:
  • (a) Due to the above remark by Buidhe, I still need to look at all the sources to make sure they are properly authoritative. (I am guessing that you have probably resolved this by now, but as reviewer I have to check). (Done. As far as I can see, all the sources are authoritative ).
  • (b) Only two words in the hook need to be linked; the other words can remain unchanged.
  • (c) In the Focus areas section of the article: The first sentence, beginning "The Grand Bargain has 51 specific commitments" needs a date in it. This is because the article as a whole deals with both an initial 2016 signed agreement and a following 5-6 years of developments. So we need to know which years we are talking about. In that sentence, does the word "commitments" refer to the signed document of 2016 only, or does it refer to the 2016 document plus the ensuing developments? If you change it to "The 2016 Grand Bargain" then it's just the initial signed document. If you don't know if that section contains developments or not, you can say something like "Between 2016 and 2021 the Grand Bargain had". But we do need to clarify what you mean. Storye book (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
(a) I am confident that you'll find the sources properly authoritative. I'm happy to field any questions. (b) Do you need me to do something, I don't follow 100%, are you asking me to chose two words? (c) I could make the edit, but I don't agree with the point. It's an agreement that occurred in 2016, so it seems obvious to me that the details were 2016 details. Just because the article includes later commentary on it and later successes and failures, I don't think it's necessary to say that the details of a 2016 agreement all were agreed in 2016. But I'm open to being wrong, I have extra knowledge on the topic that isn't in the article, so I may lack perspective. But is this really necessary? If I wrote about the 2012 olympic games, would I need to mention in the list of activities that they all took place in 2012, even if the article included 2018 commentary on the games? You get my point? CT55555 (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • (a) is now resolved.
  • (b) Yes I am asking you to link "2016 agreement" and keep the rest of the words as they are, but leave them unlinked.
ALT5 ... that despite a 2016 commitment to channel 25% of humanitarian aid through local aid organizations, only 2.1% of 2020 funding went to them?
ALT6 ... that despite a 2016 agreement to channel 25% of humanitarian aid through local aid organizations, only 2.1% of 2020 funding went to them?
I have slight preference for ALT5 CT55555 (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • (c) In the light of your explanation, please begin the first sentence of the Focus areas section, "The 2016 Grand Bargain had ..." Yes I understand what the article is about, and yes I understand what you intend and what you mean. However WP articles are about communication, i.e. however knowledgeable, clever and correct you might be as an editor, the readership still need to understand what you are saying. That sentence is not clear to the reader. You need to clarify it for the reader by adding the date, even if the date is obvious to yourself. Storye book (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Cool cool, extra clarity can't hurt. I've made the change. CT55555 (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, CT55555 for your amazing patience and for the hard work you have put into getting this right for DYK. It is much appreciated. This nomination is now good to go, for ALT 5 or 6 (preference for 5). Storye book (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence. A side benefit of all this scrutiny and debate is a better article, so this is all good. CT55555 (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

ALT5 to T:DYK/P2

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Grand_Bargain_(humanitarian_reform)&oldid=1064559895"