Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Poverty in Cyprus

< 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 97198 (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Poverty in Cyprus edit

(
)

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 04:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

  • New enough. Long enough. QPQ done. The hook doesn't really make sense, without any context on what is meant here by poverty. And I can't see what source it is that backs up the "likely increased". Link to source 7 is broken. Source 11 is 14 pages long - which page? Some refs are bare URLs. The article is quite poorly written. NOT checked for close paraphrasing/copyvios. Edwardx (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The hook doesn't really make sense". Subjective, I find it quite sensible, but I'll ping economist User:Volunteer Marek for a 3O.
  • "Link to source 7 is broken. " Fixed.
  • "Source 11 is 14 pages long - which page?" This level of detail which I generally support is not required for DYK's. In fact, I don't think it is even required for FAs. Nonetheless it is good practice and I'd consider double checking and providing a page number, if not for the fact that in this case it is self-evident: look at the title and read the abstract.
  • "Some refs are bare URLs." Which ones? I don't see any.
  • "The article is quite poorly written." Subjective, and not an issue for DYKs, unless the prose is gibberish, which I think it's not. You are more than welcome to copyedit the prose to make it better, which I am sure can be done, but I'll repeat: I believe that the prose as it stands right now meets minimum DYK reqs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Looking quickly at the source, the poverty referred to is relative poverty (income relative to median), not absolute poverty (which given the magnitudes also makes sense since absolute poverty in Cyprus would probably be on the order of 1% or less).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, scratch that. In table 2 they use the Foster Greer Thorbecke index which is usually calculated for absolute poverty. They also say that they use a static poverty line for all the years under consideration. This means that the statement refers to absolute poverty as defined for Cyprus - i.e. it's a measure for that economy over time, but it cannot be used to compare to other countries.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Apologies for not coming back to this sooner, but I've never studied economics, so it is quite hard work to review this. By "the source", I assume we mean Koutsampelas and Polycarpou (2013). From both the title and the abstract, it seems clear to me that the source primarily focuses on relative poverty, although it also looks at absolute poverty. I would not be willing to sign off the current hook, and would propose ALT1 below (of course, it will have to be reviewed by someone else): Edwardx (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, first, this needs to be in past tense, since this already happened. Second, you're actually right that they do talk a lot about relative poverty in the article, especially in the title and the abstract. This is what threw me off initially as well. *However*, the actual fact from the hook is based on the table and discussion which is about *absolute* poverty, as measured by the FGT Index (Foster Greer Thorbecke). So it's incorrect to say it was "relative poverty" - it was "absolute poverty" (as defined by the government of Cyprus). I will double check to make sure, but I'm pretty sure about this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Edwardx and Volunteer Marek: I am not fond of qualifying statements like "according to one study" which seem to cast doubt on the assertion. Unless contradictory sources are presented, there's no need to be cautious. This is what the article states. I do appreciate any clarifications regarding absolute/relative poverty and such; thank you both for your help! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment "...poverty in Cyprus has increased after many years stability, likely due to the..." ~ R.T.G 22:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • checkYConfirm, The citation in the last paragraph to page one of Social Protection in the Candidate Countries.. needs to be changed to page 59. Otherwise I have copy-edited the full text a little and all citations seem to be in order. Note to author: Only one of the redlinks required an article, Unemployment in Cyprus, and I delinked it so there were no red links for DYK, but if you'd like to go back to that in the future I'd suggest starting the article Employment in Cyprus which maybe be much easier to write and can contain the info about unemployment. ~ R.T.G 06:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • RTG, the rule against redlinks for DYK just refers to the hook itself; while the hook can't have redlinks, there can be redlinks in the nominated article. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
    • @BlueMoonset:Indeed, apologies and I have read the guides a little more carefully for another time, ty. Also, you might be interested to make an opinion at the long waiting Minor White review above (July 20th). I assume that it is not reviewed because the sources cannot be checked, but patience seems to be fraying in the belief there is some sort of perceived issue with the style. ~ R.T.G 10:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • New review needed by new reviewer (RTG proposed the only active hook and is thus ineligible to review it), which should include a check to be sure prose is adequate to DYK. Since the original review failed to check neutrality and close paraphrasing, these facets needs checking now. ALT1 hook has been struck due to above comments; restating the partial hook proposed by RTG on September 4 as a complete, properly formatted ALT2 (which replaces the original hook):
@Piotrus: Since the first review covered everything but neutrality and close paraphrasing, I looked at these, as well as the hook ALT2. From the sampling I did, no close paraphrasing was found. (I will note that the lack of page numbers made it time-consuming to check. Please consider adding them in the future.) Neutrality also seems to be good, though I am not an economist, nor am I familiar with the literature available on this topic. However, the statement, "this reflects the 2012–13 Cypriot financial crisis" (as a conclusion drawn from the prior quoted text in the article) does not appear to be supported by either of the two cited sources. Instead, this appears to be conjecture made by the author. Because the DYK hook is dependent upon this, I cannot give the green light on this nomination. – Maky « talk » 19:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@User:Maky: I'd think it's really splitting hairs, but fine :) I added a new ref, which is a news report of one of those very two sources. It uses the term economic crisis, not financial - if you want, feel free to use pipes to change the phrase, but I say it is synonymous. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Though I certainly suspect that the economic crisis has caused this rise in poverty (and I am sympathetic because I, too, am poor in my own country), the reference added does not directly support the assertion that the sudden rise in poverty in 2013 was due to the financial crisis. In fact, it primarily talks about the years 2009 and 2010. To me, this seems like a case of WP:SYNTH. I suggest dropping the statement from the article, focusing on the facts from your sources, and writing a hook that falls in line with your sources, even if it does not say what you want said. If you wish to insist on keeping it, we will need additional opinions on the matter. – Maky « talk » 08:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll ask User:Volunteer Marek for a 3O on this issue. If he agrees with you, I'll concede the case. Can you propose an alternate hook in meantime? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised the article didn't mention austerity measures, which were mentioned at 2012–13 Cypriot financial crisis. Although they can't be used to interpret the source quoted in this article, if those sources talk about austerity measures leading to increased poverty in 2013, you might be able to state them as separate, but related facts. Just a thought. Otherwise, I think it's best that I don't propose an ALT hook since then I will not be able to review/approve it. – Maky « talk » 22:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
@Piotrus: If no one is going to address the concerns for this nomination in a timely manner, then I will fail it for the reasons given above. It is already one of the oldest nominations on the list. – Maky « talk » 18:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
@Piotrus and Maky:Wikipedia:Did_you_know#The_DYK_process "reviewers may also suggest improvements or alternatives to the hook." It's ready and passed. If I made a mistake, let me know.. ~ R.T.G 23:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I do believe all issues are resolved, but here's an uncontroversial alt3 if the closing admin decides to play it safe. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  • ALT3: ... that in the past few years poverty in Cyprus has increased after long period of stability?
I'm fine with this hook. I remember the sources supporting it. – Maky « talk » 06:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In my view, there are still a lot of problems with this article, which I first reviewed two months ago. For a start, the first sentence is not supported by the source. Cyprus is mispelled at least twice. Etc. It is an important and worthwhile subject, but I feel that featuring it on our front page may do a disservice to Wikipedia. Edwardx (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Fine, I've struck my support. I've fixed a few typos (which you could have done also) and marked the first sentence as needing a ref. Furthermore, as stated at WP:LEAD, "the first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what (or who) the subject is." Cyprus is not the subject, poverty in Cyprus is. – Maky « talk » 17:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
And I have edited the lead, removing the first sentence. ~ R.T.G 18:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Unless Edwardx has further objections, I'm good with this article for DYK. – Maky « talk » 02:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I've just done some copyediting. The article could still do with a decent first sentence! Edwardx (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
It should start with the earliest recorded reference to poverty in Cyprus, and then say why those records are considered unreliable, and when they are considered reliable from. But it's not needed to be well written at all for the DYK pass. Just that the text is readable and relevant and that the facts are all sourced. ~ R.T.G 12:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Then I've no further objections. Edwardx (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Piotrus, I've pulled this from prep as I don't think the hook is supported by the article and I couldn't see any easy way to fix it. According to the article the levels of poverty "have not changed significantly following Cyprus' entry into the European Union in 2004"; this statement is presumably out of date now; poverty fell between 2009 and 2012, rose in 2013 and then stabilised, so there was not a "long period of stability"; there are no figures for 2014 and according to the Cypriot government there is a lack of reliable statistics on poverty in Cypress. The "period of stability" should also specify that it is talking about poverty levels, as if we talk about a country being unstable we don't normally think of poverty levels but of socio-political stability. Belle (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Adding icon to indicate there is a problem and to supersede earlier tick, so this doesn't show up on the verified list. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment from the article "falls between 2009 and 2012. However, it increases considerably in 2013 (13.1%–32.9%) and thereafter it stabilizes at rather high levels," or,
  • ALT5 ... that unemployment in Cyprus rose from 3.7% to 15.9% in five years (2008–2013)? or,
  • ALT6 ... that poor education and an immature pension system are contributing to high poverty in Cyprus? or,
  • ALT7 ... that the poverty rate in Cyprus was steady at 32.9% in 2013, but without enough reliable statistics to discuss it with the UN?
  • ALT8 ... that state policy towards poverty in Cyprus may not reach extended families, communities, failing small family businesses, and immigrants? @Belle and BlueMoonset: ~ R.T.G 14:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed, as Belle seems to be inactive at the moment. Her concerns in pulling the earlier hook should be considered with regard to the four new hooks, all of which need to be checked for sourcing and the like; I have struck the earlier hooks because they all have the phrase "period of stability" in them. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm on it, BlueMoonset. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • So many edits, so many reviewers, and still so much to clean up. Anyway, ALT6 is the way to go. It's verified (after a minor tweak in hook and article) and it's the best of the bunch--I was considering ALT5, but that is not directly related to poverty; ALT7 is odd with this "discuss with the UN" (not quite clear what that means or why it matters); ALT8 doesn't have much zip to it. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: struck the non-approved hooks; only ALT6 is left. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Poverty_in_Cyprus&oldid=1017017398"