Template talk:Did you know/Garuda Contingent

Garuda Contingent[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as 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 Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)

... that Indonesian peacekeeping forces (example pictured) have served in Egypt, Israel, Bosnia, Somalia, and the Philippines?

Created by Crisco 1492 (talk). Self nom at 03:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed: The Jeremy Kyle Show (U.S. TV series) diff

Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:

Hook

Length, format, content rules: --Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source: --Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interest: --Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image suitability, if applicable: --Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ALT hooks, if proposed:

Article

Length: --Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vintage: --Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing (V, RS, BLP): --Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality: --Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism/close paraphrasing:
Copyvio: --Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting:

Comments/discussion:

Looks good. My only comment is with regard to blue-linking -- the countries are blue-linked in the article, but not in the hook. Whatever the correct application of WP:LINK may be (and whether it is the same for Namibia and Somalia, for example, as for Egypt and Israel), it should be applied consistently to both the hook and the article, IMHO. Others may wish to comment on this point. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:OVERLINK is applied differently to articles and the main page. At the very least, if we link all of the countries in the hook then we will be polluting the main page with unnecessary secondary links. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just performed what I consider to be a 'bare minimum' unlinking of the article. I feel that linking should always be non-redundant and as specific as possible. Country articles, as link targets, are much abused, and I hope to be able to bring about a general re-evaluation of the benefits (read 'lack thereof'). In this specific case, I feel there is not sufficiently strong a relationship between the subject and each of the countries to warrant this sort of generic country-name link. In similar cases of lists, I would unhesitatingly remove all country links. If for example there were more germane articles, it might be appropriate to pipe a link thus: [[United Nations Operation in Côte d'Ivoire|Côte d'Ivoire]]. Alternatively, instead of having a sprawling list, separate paragraphs developing what was done in specific operations in specific countries, along the lines of Azerbaijani peacekeeping forces, would be of greater encyclopaedic value for our readers. Having said all that, the current effort as it stands is satisfies all the DYK rules. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I included some of the more "listy" deployments in the same paragraphs as others as there was no information about them forthcoming, and one sentence paragraphs look pretty bad. Thanks for the additional review. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]