Template:Did you know nominations/Korea Queer Culture Festival

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 Skr15081997 (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Korea Queer Culture Festival

(

)

... ~~that organizers of Korea Queer Culture Festival ask photographers to blur participant faces to avoid accidental outing?~~

Reviewed: Cheddar Palace
Comment: Feel free to propose alternate hooks. I may be able to upload some pictures after the parade next week. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Created by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 05:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC).

(Hope I'm doing this right — my first review.) Article long enough, new enough, not plagiarised. Referencing acceptable. No disputes, and looks neutral. (I have fixed some minor issues.)

My only problem is with the hook: the inline references don't explicitly state that photography restrictions are to avoid outing. Or am I being too harsh? I don't really doubt that this is the reason for the restriction. NB: one of the references in that area — Hani.co.kr — doesn't work for me at the moment (says server unavailable).

--A bit iffy (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with the original hook because there are too many contradictions. The hook says that clear photographs of faces are discouraged to protect attendees, yet according to our reviewer A bit iffy (above) the citations don't quite support it - and if the original hook is correct and the attendees need protection of privacy, why does the article contain clear photographs of faces? Note to clarify: I am commenting on contradictory information as presented in hook and article, not on perceived moral issues here. To sidestep this problem and to get this nom moving, I'm offering an ALT below.--Storye book (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
ALT1: ... ~~that movie director Kim Jho Kwang-soo and actress Harisu have attended Korea Queer Culture Festival, one of the largest such festivals in Asia?~~ --Storye book (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

ALT1 seems fine, if somewhat less interesting, IMHO. For the record, in case I took pictures of specific festival participants in settings that looked non-public, I asked for permission first. Otherwise everyone falls into either festival non-participant, festival volunteer, public performer, random passerby, and police. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries, Piotrus. I was not questioning your images - after all, the photos were taken by the same person who wrote the article. The issue was the apparent contradiction of information, and the original hook draws attention to that contradiction. If you really want the more interesting original hook, I think you will need to resolve that contradiction in the article or on the image filepages, perhaps using the same explanation that you gave here. If you do not wish to do that, then it would be less awkward if you go with ALT1 or another alternative hook. --Storye book (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Storye book: How about ALT2: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT2: ... ~~that the 2014 Korea Queer Culture Festival has been disrupted by anti-LGBT, conservative Christian demonstrators?~~

Review of ALT2: ALT2 is acceptable and short enough. It checks out with online citation #12. I have struck the original hook and ALT1 because I understand that ALT2 supersedes them. Original review by A bit iffy taken on trust. I have lightly copyedited the article for Standard English, but did not change the length, meaning or content. ~~Good to go~~ with ALT2. --Storye book (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The article has some bare-url reference citations that need to be cleaned up before it can be used. Additionally, there are some citations that aren't bare urls but fail to provide meaningful information about the sources cited -- these should also be fixed up. Additionally, because the festival has ended, the verb tense in the hook should be simple past tense ("was disrupted") not the past perfect ("has been disrupted"):

ALT2A: ... that the 2014 Korea Queer Culture Festival was disrupted by anti-LGBT, conservative Christian demonstrators? --Orlady (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Orlady. I have formatted the bare urls - I guess that does not compromise my review, since it is a minor edit and does not change content or meaning. I confirm that ALT2A is fine, and I have struck ALT2. Remaining issue: Piotrus. Please see Orlady's comment (in bold, above). --Storye book (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker and I don't see a meaningful difference. Please fix any tense issues you see, I am afraid this is not my forte. The one instance of " have been" I see seems correct to me as it refers not to a single incident but general practice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My concerns about referencing are resolved, after edits by Storye book and me. I reviewed the article and sources, and I agree with earlier reviewers that everything else is OK. As for the verb tense in the hook, if the hook was about the festival in general, the past perfect tense would be appropriate. However, the ALT2 hook refers specifically to the 2014 festival, which was a discrete event that has concluded. As such, it should be described in the simple past tense (as in the ALT2A wording). --Orlady (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)