Template:Did you know nominations/Corruption in Uzbekistan

• Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Captain Phasma

5x expanded by DaltonCastle (talk). Self-nominated at 00:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC).

• All the hooks are interesting, though I find the initial hook and ALT3 to be the most interesting personally. The article was expanded within the date requirement, and the nominator has provided a QPQ. I have not found any instances of close paraphrasing or direct copyvio infringements. All content in the article is cited to reliable sources. However, the following problems must be addressed.

1. All quotes must have a citation immediately following the quote.

2. The article is not entirely

neutral in its point of view

. Please try to stick to neutral language and avoid editorial-style vocabulary.

3. The section on the Gulnara Karimova telecom corruption scandal is far too long, especially in comparison to other sections. It is long enough to be it's own article.

For now, unless these issue are resolved, I'm failing this nomination.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for reviewing and letting me know. I will get on this promptly. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Addressed two of the issues (refs after quotes and shortening Gulnara section) and a little of the last (providing further neutral voice). Will go through more to see what can be fixed. But if there is any guidance you can give to speed up identifying problems please let me know. Otherwise, I'll try to find everything I can. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Superseding previous icon with a somewhat less serious one to prevent this nomination from being closed while it's being worked on. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• The Gulnara section looks a lot better now. It's not that the content wasn't informative, but too long for this article. You should create a separate article dealing with it. With the quotes, better, but this one still needs a cite: "Public officials, lawyers, and judges often 'interpret local legislation inconsistently and in conflict with each other.'" But anyway, that section is at a manageable length now. Good job. As for NPOV, I'll list some examples, but keep in mind this isn't exhaustive.

  "The year saw an grotesque extortion, even far after the harvest was complete..." change to "UGF called the quotas an 'unprecedented degree of extortion', as workers were made to continue their labor in exchange for food and housing."

  "The Uzbek Constitution's guarantee of press freedom is meaningless, with almost all media operating under government control." change to "... guarantee of press freedom is effectively non-existent in practice, with almost all media operating under government control."

  "For example, despite his nation's high levels of corruption and human-rights violations, Karimov was welcomed by the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso with open arms." change to "...Karimov received a warm welcome from the President of the European Commission." Also, this needs a direct cite.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  Just to be update you all, I have addressed the above issues and am continuing searching for any instances of non-neutral wording. Will inform you when I make more significant progress. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  Ok just went through and attempted to address the issues. Hopefully this solves it. Let me know if there are anymore issues. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• @3family6: what are your thoughts on the article as it stands? DaltonCastle (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you'd finished. I'll take a look tomorrow afternoon.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Look forward to your notes. DaltonCastle (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:VAGUE, with most uses of "supposedly" or "reportedly," "is said to," etc., why not just mention which source is making the claims? It is less vague, and can strengthen the force of the allegations ("the United States Justice Department reports..." is a much stronger phrase then "supposedly... ."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done

) 21:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Got it. I'll go through and add some attribution to some of the claims. I assume this is not necessary at every instance. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@3family6: Added some attribution. What are your thoughts on it now? DaltonCastle (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Approved now that the outstanding issues were addressed. Any hook will work, though, as I said in my initial review, I prefer the lead hook or else ALT 3.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)