Talk:A Flood in Baath Country

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 01:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Zanahary (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 13 past nominations.

꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • I'm not sure how this hook squares up against the rules to avoid hooks solely based on the content of works, but regardless of that, I am not sure how it's interesting or relevant that, basically, the filmmaker changed his mind about something... (t · c) buidhe 23:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That rule is: If the subject of the hook is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must be focused on a real-world fact. This is a real-world fact about a nonfiction work. As for the fact, I think it's definitely unusual and remarkable for a filmmaker to make a film criticizing his own work. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Yes
  • Neutral: Yes
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: No - Earwig says that phrases like "advent of the dam" and "through the lens of salvage ethnography" and "with an eighteenth-century BCE limestone statue of the goddess Ishtar excavated from the" are identical to what's in the abstract of ref 2, so they could be changed to avoid close paraphrasing unless it can't be avoided. "Naive early enthusiasm" is similar to "earlier naive enthusiasm" in ref 4, so "Naive early" or just "early" could be changed to "initial" if possible. Otherwise the whole thing's good.
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Nominated on creation day and sized at 2360 B. Can't access refs 2 and 3 to verify anything so will AGF. @Zanahary: I have to agree with you this hook is interesting based on your explanation, but fix the paraphrasing issue and you're good to go. Film Essay on the Euphrates Dam, which is linked in the hook, is a stub sized at 233 B, so if you want to expand it and make it a second bold, feel free to do so and ping me if you're done; I can even hold the nom for you for the time being. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Miraclepine! I’ll fix the paraphrasing. I can also try to expand A Flood in Ba’ath Country. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: I've found the fix satisfactory. I'll approve Film Essay on the Euphrates Dam, but ping me once A Flood in Baath Country is sufficiently expanded. ミラP@Miraclepine 20:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Miraclepine: I've done it! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: Thank you. I'm busy with school right now and with other things, but I'll review this tonight or tomorrow. ミラP@Miraclepine 20:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary: Since your hook now has two bolded articles, please do a second QPQ. ミラP@Miraclepine 16:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine: Done! here. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: Thank you, I'll start reviewing the article now. And for the record: I'm putting it to where the first QPQ is listed for convenience. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: No - See below.
  • Neutral: No - Ref 21 says that the report of the cancellation (but not what the report led to) was a rumor; fix Jeune Afrique sentence to say that, and also to for due weight to note that the JCC organizers affirmed their anti-censorship guarantee at the time. I think the "strongly" in "strongly criticizes" is MOS:EDITORIALizing? Otherwise it's all good.
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: No - See below.
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Zanahary: Yeah, this article has serious problems with close paraphrasing which need to be fixed, as well as some issues with WP:V.

Oh, and this was expanded from 233 B to 9718 B within a few days of being bolded. ミラP@Miraclepine 05:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I'm not sure. I understand it's long, but all this info is still relevant to the DYK, and moving it outside this page might cause all the discussion to be decentralized. Further, I think all the necessary details should be present, and of course there's a lot of them given there were noticeable copyright issues in the page. Would it be best to collapse all this?
Oh, and while I was writing this reply, I noticed a lot of work's being done on this article. I'll take a look at it as soon as I can. ミラP@Miraclepine 16:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, review done at last. @Zanahary:, this is long so I'm collapsing it (and also the other; I'm just using Template:Collapse instead of cot/cob given WP:DYKNOM's severe issues with WP:PEISX):

BTW wish I had brought this up last time, but consider the refbombing cleanup optional. @Zanahary: these issues need to be fixed, or this nomination won't get to the main page, and I highly recommend making as many issue fixes at once instead of through numerous so I can track these changes quicker and faster. ミラP@Miraclepine 20:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All edits done, except:
  • I did not change "guarantee against censorship" to "commitment to anti-censorship", since the latter implies an ideological alignment to the combating of censorship while the former merely means that the festival promised not to censor anything. I don't think these three words form a copyright issue.
  • I read no ambiguity in the source about the dedication's attachment to the broadcast. From the source: Amiralay said that one of the Arab satellite networks had bought "A Flood in Baath Country" ... Amiralay said he had asked the network to include a dedication to a friend, ... "include" here implies that the dedication would be part of the broadcast of the film.
  • I'm confused by also add "saying that" "different" and "they think this lake". What are you asking for?
  • I don't see how saying the Syrian government "directly asked" is a problem. Changing to "attempted to convince" is a departure from the original meaning and a superficial alteration to avoid two words matching with the source. I think these words are fine and not a copyright problem.
  • I changed the restraining order Haaretz text to just say "order prohibiting Amiralay from leaving Syria had been removed"
  • "Travel abroad to work on a film in Jordan" is redundant. This, again, is too small to be a copyvio.
  • Can you specifically name the ref you want removed from "which aired in Syria"? And why?
  • Removal of the car bomb detail—how is that CLOP?—would strip the implicit accusation of assassination of its context. If I said "his death", the reader would not know if he was blown up, disappeared, killed himself, etc., and I obviously cannot say "his assassination".
  • 3 and 7 are fixed and 8 is unchanged—I don't know what these numbers refer to, as your notes are just bullets.
  • For your previous notes: there is no source explaining the discrepancy between variants on Fifteen reasons. It was a working title. Before that, it was twelve reasons. I don't think this needs a footnote, but feel free to add one if you disagree. Ref 19 is literally redundant to 24. I think these ref numbers have changed, and I don't know what sources they refer to. I don't see a reason not to have both Le Matin and Le Nouvel Obs for the prize claim. Two sources for a claim is pretty standard and not in the territory of WP:CITEKILL. The Farouk Mardam Bey thing is another example of an apparent disagreement between you and I on close paraphrasing and WP:LIMITED—I don't see a reason to alter the natural wording into something superficially more distant from the source's obvious verbiage. I've trimmed the Baathist textbook, but I think what is there should stay; it's very interesting and exemplifies the school section of the film quite well. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: I'm currently busy with schoolwork and can't do the whole thing at once right now (also including changes you've made since then), but I'll try to catch up between Tuesday and Friday (worst case scenario the latter date). For now:
  1. Re 2: Okay, seems I overlooked this. Feel free to write it that way.
  2. Re 3: Ooh, sorry. I meant you would add "saying that"
  3. Re 9: These are what the bullets would be if the extended detail reviews used numbers.
  4. I'd like to note that the principle of WP:LIMITED, which I've used in DYK before, is that it applies unless there is a different plausible way to say it; in these cases I found them here and there, hence my request to make the changes.
Hope this clears things up. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: Just looked at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_202#c-RoySmith-20241101020900-Crisco_1492_mobile-20241101015300, so I've done a few fixes outside the ones you've objected to. I'll finish the rest of the review once I come home or tomorrow. ミラP@Miraclepine 20:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: Since I'm home, where were we?
  • Re 1: I felt "committed" and "guarantee" have the same meaning in indicating promise, but then your reply gave me an idea: something in the lines of "kept its promise against censorship"?
  • Re 4: How about "directly asked the Tunisian government to prevent" -> "directly requested that the Tunisian government prevent"? "directly asked" seems redundant, and I'm sure one will get the idea about whom they requested it to if "directly" is used before "requested".
  • Re 5: I'll approve that.
  • Re 6: Following on the principle on WP:LIMITED: just use "travel to Jordan to work on a film"
  • Re 7: The Haaretz ref, marked with ref name ":13". The Asharq Al-Aswat ref, which the Haaretz ref is next to, already says the whole thing.
  • Re 8: Okay, you make a point about relevance. we'll compromise. Per the principle of WP:LIMITED, how about "before his death by" -> "before being fatally injured by"
  • Re 10 is somewhat long, so I'll reply:
  • Yeah, assuming the secondary sources got the name mixed up, I'm going with Mohamad al-Roumi.
  • That's because sources were added thus increasing the ref numbers; about the refs in question, both Variety articles from Ali Jaafar, I've read the Gale ref thru WP:LIBRARY and it's technically the same thing as the weblink Variety, so I've replaced it with the same. (For the record, I referenced Special:Permalink/1256099108 in the first review.)
  • Keep the prize claim refs per your point in WP:CITEKILL.
  • The ref still verifies everything the Farouk Mardam Bey proposal says.
  • The textbook quote and "The restriction on Amiralay's travel" thing will stay your way
  • For content added since then: "the script Amiralay had sent him was entitled" = "The script he sent me was titled", so I've changed to "the script he received from Amiralay was named"; I've also copyedited the other for sentence structure.
  • Continuing from the first extended review: In the first paragraph of the Content section, I prefer "remorse" over mistake and distress; change "at a Syrian airport" to "at the Jordan–Syria border" per [1]; and my point on "aired in Syria" -> "was also seen by Syrian viewers" still stands.
Hope this help. ミラP@Miraclepine 05:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary and Miraclepine: What is the status of this nomination?--Launchballer 01:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Zanahary hasn't addressed any of the issues I brought up in my last reply since then. Worst case scenario we run ALT0.5 with "his last film" unbolded. Zanahary, apologies for the second ping, but you need to address these issues as soon as possible if you want A Flood in Baath Country bolded. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Miraclepine I assent to and have no problem with all these proposed changes—if you are willing to make them yourself, then please go ahead—I have no access to a computer for some days and can only edit on mobile, which would make executing these changes difficult. Just so you know, there's no mix-up between sources on how to romanize al-Roumi's name—it's just a matter of different spelling conventions and the use of al- before certain proper names, which some non-Arabic styles omit. I thank you very much for your persistence in this review. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: Everything else is done but I'm keeping the Haaretz ref (which is clustered at [39][40] as of Special:Permalink/1259929478) per your point on using two refs for a claim. ミラP@Miraclepine 15:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Miraclepine: Thank you. In general, I like for the References sections on Wikipedia articles to be thorough bibliographies—if meaningfully different sources overlap, then I cite them all, so that someone interested in researching the subject in depth can access every good source from the Wikipedia article. Is this DYK ready for a tick? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: ALT0 approved. I've also did a few minor changes that were overlooked. ミラP@Miraclepine 16:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary and Miraclepine: Was going to promote this, however I'm uneasy about the amount of unattributed quotes that are in the article. I think these should be rewritten or attributed. That's in both articles.--Launchballer 12:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: I have attributed (or in rare cases replaced) many of them. Let me know if I missed any.
@Launchballer: I forgot to sign so the above ping didn't work. ミラP@Miraclepine 15:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

https://www.aljazeera.net/programs/thearabiclens/2006/4/10/%d8%b9%d9%85%d8%b1-%d8%a3%d9%85%d9%8a%d8%b1%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a7%d9%8a-%d8%a3%d9%81%d9%84%d8%a7%d9%85-%d8%aa%d8%b3%d8%ac%d9%8a%d9%84%d9%8a%d8%a9-%d8%a3%d8%b4%d8%a8%d9%87 ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1993/12/18/cinema-cinema-syrien-a-l-institut-du-monde-arabe-filmer-malgre-la-censure_3967519_1819218.html ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romanized name

the romanized name in the first sentence is actually the director's first film's original name! 2804:431:C7DC:9CF6:48E6:780D:DC10:46AB (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! I’ve corrected the Arabic (the romanization is correct?) ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

PASSED
Issues with prose and citation formatting have been resolved, bringing the article up to GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Flood in Baath Country/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Zanahary (talk · contribs) 19:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 14:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • It seems this article freely alternates between "Ba'ath" and "Baath". The use case should be standardised to one or the other.

Background and production

  • "1970's Film Essay on the Euphrates Dam" Recommend "Film Essay on the Euphrates Dam (1970)".
  • "Amiralay had supportively documented" This is the first time mentioning him in the body of the article, so use his full name and link to his article here.
  • Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
  • "tribal inhabitants" Hrm, not sure about this phrasing here. The cited source says they were farmers, and that seems more descriptive to me than calling the villages' inhabitants "tribal".
  • "deep shame" Which of the four sources is this quoted in? I can't see it in the New York Times article. For quotes, you should stick to only citing the sources that actually use it and move the others inline with the specific information they verify.
  • Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
  • "explained his return to Film Essay on the Euphrates Dam" What do you mean by "return"?
  • Spotcheck: [13] Verified, although for some reason the Wikipedia quote changed "criticise" to "criticize". Why is this?
  • Could we trim down this quote or rewrite it in summary style?
  • Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
All resolved ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and production

  • Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
  • "who assisted in the production of A Flood in Baath Country," -> "who assisted in the film's production". We know what film is being discussed at this point.
  • Spotcheck: [15] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [15] Verified, although the cited source calls it the "General Film Organization", not the "National Film Organization". Is there a reason for the change?
All resolved (GFO was an error, I guess, or a less-common name for the NFO). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content

  • Spotcheck: [16] Verified.
  • "submerging all life in Syria" You are quoting from the source, but altering the grammar, so this should be indicated as such: "submerg[ing] all life in Syria".
  • Spotcheck: [17] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [18] Verified on page 525; specific page numbers should be provided for paginated sources.
  • Spotcheck: [19] Verified.
  • "The school's village" What? Do you mean village's school? If so, what village are we talking about?
  • Spotcheck; [16] Verified.
  • Link to Rote learning.
  • I'm not sure we should be liberally quoting a Ba'athist propaganda textbook. Is there a way we can summarise what it's telling the children, or trim it down to the essential information?
  • Spotcheck: [19] Verified.
  • The photo of Assad should be aligned right, per MOS:IMAGELOC.
The Ba'athist propaganda read and recited by the children is featured at great length in the film, and it's been extracted by at least one secondary source as a significant moment in the film. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise all resolved. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematography

  • Spotcheck: [19] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [26] Verified.
  • There's a lot of analysis here. Why is this not in the critical reception section?
The cinematography section is mostly descriptions of content, more than reception. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and censorship

  • Spotcheck: [17] Verified.
  • Sptocheck: [27] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [30] Verified.

Cancelled Carthage showing

  • Spotcheck: [27] Verified.
  • " the festival's director Nadia Attia,[27] and a number of " Think you could start a new sentence with "A number of", which would save the sentence being interrupted by a citation.
  • Spotcheck: [34] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [37][38] Verified.
Done ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship and arrest in Syria

  • James Bennett should be introduced.
  • "James Bennett wrote in 2005 that he had seen the film on DVD despite the censorship "like everyone else [in Syria]"" Was Bennett in Syria at the time?
  • "fatally injured by" If they were killed in the car bomb, it should say so.
  • Spotcheck: [40][41] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [41][45] Verified.
  • I think, if this detail is verified by Haaretz, there's no need for us to be citing the US Department of State. I don't think the latter is the best source.
    • I don't see harm in citing the DoS. It is significant that the incident was reported in a DoS publication on Syria, Doesn't need to be stated in the article, but I think it's better to have a complete bibliography in the references, and it does no harm. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this is Amiralay's last film. It might be worth briefly mentioning what happened to him afterwards.

Critical reception

  • Broadly, what is the critical consensus on the film? Positive? Negative?
  • Spotcheck: [17] Verified.
  • Introductions to these people would be helpful, even just to know whether they're film critics, academics, or otherwise.
  • "A Flood in Baath Country "brought [Amiralay] to international renown"" According to whom? We're not attributing this quote for some reason.
  • Spotcheck: [15] Verified.
  • "Mahmoud ou la Montée des eaux" Should be italicised.
I don't think a summary like "AFIBC was acclaimed by critics" should be added when there's no aggregate source like Rotten Tomatoes to say so. The details are reproduced right there; a one-sentence forewarning would not be additive in my view. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise resolved ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

  • Some of the citations in this infobox seem to have formatting errors (like putting "conserver), FICA-Old (à." or "www.oberon.nl, Oberon Amsterdam" in the author fields); this has resulted in the article being tagged for CS1 errors (numeric names and multiple names). Give these a check over to make sure they're properly formatted.
I believe these are now fixed ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's still CS1 errors. Citations 34 (Enab Baladi) and 51 (replay.bpi.fr) seem to be the problem ones, although there maybe others. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are they now resolved? Sorry I can't self-guide on this one! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: Last maintenance tag remaining appears to be for the US state department source, as the citation is giving "Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor" as the last name of the author. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it with double-parentheses ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be fixed now, nice one. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    There's a couple cases where the prose isn't clear or concise enough.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    All MOS-compliant.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    There's some formatting errors in some of the citations, which has left the article in maintenance categories.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    All sources are reliable and cited inline throughout. One case where sources are bundled together after a quote, where they should be more specifically placed.
    C. It contains no original research:
    No original research as far as I can see.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No copyvio or plagiarism noticed in spotchecks; Earwig only flags clearly attributed quotes.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Everything one would expect to be in here is.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Never loses focus from the subject.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Broadly neutral, not taking any stance in wikivoice.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No reversions in its history; no major changes since GA nomination.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Poster has a valid fair use rationale; photograph of dam construction has a valid license. Publication date and authorship of the Assad photo should be provided if possible.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    All pictures are clearly relevant to the subject.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This is a very well-written and informative article, and is close to meeting GA criteria, although it could do with some prose adjustments and has some issues with citation formatting and placement. Once these comments are addressed, I'll be happy to give it another look over. Feel free to ping me once these issues are addressed and/or if you have questions. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot @Grnrchst! I will work on these and ping. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: Hey, any updates on this? --Grnrchst (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst I'll get to work today! Just been busy with work ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to find authorship or dating for the Assad portrait. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Per the tag, it shouldn't be necessary, but it's worth at least trying to find out in any case. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I once did search for more information on the photograph to see if I could find it in higher quality, and sadly I couldn't find anything. I ended up restoring it from two different copies with different artifacts. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: Hey. There's two follow-up comments that need addressing. After those, I think I'll be ready to pass this. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they have all been addressed now! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for addressing all of my concerns. I am happy to pass this review now. Excellent work. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:A_Flood_in_Baath_Country