Talk:Mwene Muji

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mwene Muji article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Africa: DRC

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Democratic Republic of the Congo portal This article is supported by WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Drafts

@Catjacket Hi, hope you're well, here's the Mwene Muji page, there's also Draft:Boma Kingdom Kowal2701 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Mwene Muji was a polity in the Congo Basin which declined in the late 19th century, and when the Belgians collected traditions in 1926, grand claims of its once imperial status were dismissed?
ALT1 ... that Mwene Muji was a polity in the Congo Basin, and when the Belgians collected traditions in 1926, grand claims of its once imperial status were dismissed?
ALT2 ... that the grand claims from the ruler of Mwene Muji of them once having imperial status were dismissed by Belgian colonial authorities?

Source: [1]

Reviewed:

Created by Kowal2701 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Kowal2701 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hello and welcome to DYK. Right now the hook does not meet the guidelines for a DYK hook as it's too long (we have a limit of 200 characters for most hooks, and ideally it should be less). In addition, it needs to largely focus on a hooky fact, whereas the current hook is essentially summarizing the article. Please prose a new hook so that the nomination can continue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kowal2701: I've also checked the article and right now it's less than 1500 characters long. DYK requires a minimum of 1500 characters of prose to be accepted. If you can expand the article further so that it meets the guidelines then less us know, but if that is not feasible then unfortunately the nomination will have to be rejected. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Narutolovehinata5 the hook is 197 words long, and it gives context the fact which is that their grand claims were dismissed. I wouldn't say it summarises the article, just the last few sentences. I can expand it further, I think at the moment it's at 1200 words. Are you sure the hook isn't okay?

Yes, the hook is far too long for DYK, even if it is slightly under the character limit. Perhaps another editor like Launchballer can give some advice on what makes a good hook, especially one that isn't too long. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Narutolovehinata5 but surely if it's under the character limit then the length is okay?

I’ve added alts, I think I know what you were getting at, that the initial hook had too much information in it and wouldn’t entice the reader to click on the article. I think ALT2 is okay? Kowal2701 (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]