BlueMoonset (talk | contribs) →Speed reviewing: update |
Karthikndr (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 284: | Line 284: | ||
:It has taken a long time to resolve this issue. Each time an objection has been raised the offending text has been quickly changed or removed (sometimes under protest!) Then there has been a long delay before another objection. Twice, it took approval of the article to trigger an objection. I sense no concern with the subject, organization, neutrality, grammar, sourcing and so on, or with the selection of excerpts from the report, just with the way the excerpts are presented. I also sense (and this may be unfair) little interest in collaborating on improving the article. [[User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao]] helpfully added categories early on, as he often does. Otherwise I have been the only contributor so far despite the long-running discussion. There must be a more efficient approach. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 00:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
:It has taken a long time to resolve this issue. Each time an objection has been raised the offending text has been quickly changed or removed (sometimes under protest!) Then there has been a long delay before another objection. Twice, it took approval of the article to trigger an objection. I sense no concern with the subject, organization, neutrality, grammar, sourcing and so on, or with the selection of excerpts from the report, just with the way the excerpts are presented. I also sense (and this may be unfair) little interest in collaborating on improving the article. [[User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao]] helpfully added categories early on, as he often does. Otherwise I have been the only contributor so far despite the long-running discussion. There must be a more efficient approach. [[User:Aymatth2|Aymatth2]] ([[User talk:Aymatth2|talk]]) 00:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Frankly, I have been always hating the close phrasing stuff for DYK's. DYK is the newest content, hence close phrasing need not be an issue. These days, DYK has been sounding like GAN. I did pointed out there [at the DYK discussion], doing the same here too. An article nominated for DYK usually only have a maximum of 1 or 2 contributors, which is not in case for GA, and that it makes difficult for an editor/volunteer to bang his head for his/her volunteerism. Things must work smoother. -- [[User:Karthikndr|♪Karthik♫]] [[User talk:Karthikndr|♪Nadar♫]] 04:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== June 8 R. L. Holdsworth nomination == |
== June 8 R. L. Holdsworth nomination == |
Revision as of 04:24, 22 June 2012
Did you know? | |
---|---|
Introduction and rules | |
Introduction | WP:DYK |
General discussion | WT:DYK |
Guidelines | WP:DYKCRIT |
Reviewer instructions | WP:DYKRI |
Nominations | |
Nominate an article | WP:DYKCNN |
Awaiting approval | WP:DYKN |
Approved | WP:DYKNA |
April 1 hooks | WP:DYKAPRIL |
Preparation | |
Preps and queues | T:DYK/Q |
Prepper instructions | WP:DYKPBI |
Admin instructions | WP:DYKAI |
Main Page errors | WP:ERRORS |
History | |
Statistics | WP:DYKSTATS |
Archived sets | WP:DYKA |
Just for fun | |
Monthly wraps | WP:DYKW |
Awards | WP:DYKAWARDS |
Userboxes | WP:DYKUBX |
Hall of Fame | WP:DYK/HoF |
List of users ... | |
... by nominations | WP:DYKNC |
... by promotions | WP:DYKPC |
Administrative | |
Scripts and bots | WP:DYKSB |
On the Main Page | |
WP:Errors | WP:Errors |
To ping the DYK admins | {{DYK admins}} |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals.
2011 DYK reform proposals
Numerous threads moved to the Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals subpage:
- Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Good articles redux
- Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Proposal - minimum character requirement increase from 1500 to 2500
- Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Some thoughts from a semi-regular
- Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Proposal to replace DYK with new Good article DYKs and demote the current system to a sub page
- Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Multiple RFCs confusing, simply remove DYK from the mainpage
- Wikipedia:Did you know/2011 reform proposals#Brainstorming related to RFC
N.B. This list and the subpage are currently incomplete and other threads have been archived by the bot to the main archives.
Template:DYK talk
Hi. Would a long-time DYKer please have a quick look at Template talk:DYK talk#Fixing num now using year/date? Thanks very much. -- Trevj (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Old unreviewed hooks?
Could some one compile a list of the older, unreviewed hooks? I'm having trouble spotting them between active discussions and what appears to be a discussion of hook interest where no review has been done, or because things may have about 4 alts. I'd be more than happy to review these articles if I knew which ones they were. (My QPQ pile is getting a bit low.) --LauraHale (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Here are a bunch from last month (just in case you're not the only one looking for more):
May 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Gotta Be You (Sugababes song)Done. --LauraHale (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Sex for BreakfastDone. --LauraHale (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/West German Audio Book Library for the BlindDone. --LauraHale (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)May 28: Template:Did you know nominations/St James House, MonmouthI just reviewed this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)May 28: Template:Did you know nominations/World Wrestling Peace FestivalThe C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)May 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Volksdeutscher SelbstschutzDone. --LauraHale (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)May 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Hygrophorus olivaceoalbusDone. --LauraHale (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)May 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Fire Storm (novel)Done. --LauraHale (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Enjoy! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Next set:
May 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Gojko BalšićDone. --LauraHale (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)May 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Engagement Ring (Roy Lichtenstein)Done. --LauraHale (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Benjamin Lee WhorfDone. --LauraHale (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)- May 28: Template:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners
May 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Cholodny Went modelDone. --LauraHale (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)May 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Santa Fina ChapelDone. --LauraHale (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)May 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Łazienkowska ThoroughfareApproved by someone; in prep 1. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)June 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Dicathais, Morula marginalbaDone. --LauraHale (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)June 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Afgansyah RezaDone. --LauraHale (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)June 1: Template:Did you know nominations/AltiatlasiusReviewed by Aymatth2
- BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC) (+1 at 04:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC))
- @BlueMoonset: Template:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners <-- I'm willing to wade into that morass but only if I know what the hell am I reviewing. Should the review be treated as ONE hook for 4 articles? Or four SEPARATE hooks for four SEPARATE articles? --LauraHale (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'd treat it as one hook covering four articles. Note that the QPQ rules require either article for article or hook for hook. This means that the article for hook currently proposed does not satisfy the requirement. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Template:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners <-- I'm willing to wade into that morass but only if I know what the hell am I reviewing. Should the review be treated as ONE hook for 4 articles? Or four SEPARATE hooks for four SEPARATE articles? --LauraHale (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Template:Did you know nominations/Altiatlasius and Template:Did you know nominations/Azibiidae appear have proposed merger into one? Don't want to review them until it is clear one way or another which way this blows. --LauraHale (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- There won't be a merger. In fact, the three-in-one hook that this might have been merged into is itself being split. You can safely review this as a separate hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Template:Did you know nominations/Altiatlasius and Template:Did you know nominations/Azibiidae appear have proposed merger into one? Don't want to review them until it is clear one way or another which way this blows. --LauraHale (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Next list of oldest hooks needing to be reviewed? --LauraHale (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll see what I find when I start building the next prep area. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
May 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Foxley WoodReviewed by Casliber- June 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Kerala Nasrani Christian music
June 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Love Never FailethDone. Mentoz86 (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC) (May 23 addition at 14:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC))
Only two left; two more have been reviewed in the past day. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
In hooks, "interesting" does not mean "deliberately obfuscatory or misleading"
This discussion, copied from WP:ERRORS, makes some points that all DYK participants (nominators, reviewers, prep-area builders, and admins who approve queues) should be aware of and take to heart:
- For this DYK:
- "... that Fred Tenney (pictured) was described as "one of the best defensive first basemen of all time", while Fred Tenney only played six games at the position?"
- It would read much better if you changed it to "even though he only played six games at the position." JoelWhy? talk 11:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think the two Freds are different people, making for a highly misleading hook. Not sure why they've done that... — foxj 13:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, you're right -- which makes this DYK even worse! They can't possibly expect all or even most readers to click on both wikilinks to figure out these are different people. JoelWhy? talk 13:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've complained about this before, but DYK really needs to stop with the joke hooks. It works fine on April 1, when it's mildly amusing and okay because of April Fools' Day. But doing it any other day is simply confusing and hardly informative. -- tariqabjotu 13:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. It read exactly like an April Fools' Day hook. If articles about two baseball players with the same name happened to qualify for DYK at the same time, I understand why someone thought that it would be interesting to combine them into a single item. But there was no need to do so in cutesy, misleading manner. This DYK batch will expire soon, but I've tweaked the wording to refer to "a different Fred Tenney". —David Levy 14:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think the two Freds are different people, making for a highly misleading hook. Not sure why they've done that... — foxj 13:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
--Orlady (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I understood immediately that the hook referred to two different people (two bolded items, after all), and was entirely not offended, bothered or upset by something not being po-faced. Silent majority and all that. GRAPPLE X 15:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- A reply that seeks to insult those who have a different opinion of the suitability of this blurb from you does nothing to convince anyone of the validity of your argument. There is nothing encyclopaedic or professional about a statement that is misleading, and it should be nowhere near the front page of an encyclopaedia (whatever the date) Kevin McE (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Um...if there was 'seek[ing] to insult' there, it's invisible to everyone else. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Being curt is not the same as seeking to insult; I'm simply stating that I (along with the hook's author, reviewer, and promoter) found it entirely suitable and that's a position that can't be ignored simply because the people who don't have complaints tend not to complain. GRAPPLE X 22:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- A reply that seeks to insult those who have a different opinion of the suitability of this blurb from you does nothing to convince anyone of the validity of your argument. There is nothing encyclopaedic or professional about a statement that is misleading, and it should be nowhere near the front page of an encyclopaedia (whatever the date) Kevin McE (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Me too, when I saw it in the preps. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I probably would have understood the blurb too, but we're hardly a valid cross-section of Wikipedia readers. We recognize the significance of "two bolded items", but not everyone does. This topic arose at WP:ERRORS because someone didn't understand the hook, and I seriously doubt that he was alone.
- How does such wording affect users of screen readers? I'm not sure, and I think that it might depend on the settings. Has this issue been considered?
- Regardless, the hook wasn't up to our normal editorial standards. It contained ambiguity deliberately inserted for the sake of humor. We don't do that on days other than 1 April (and many believe that we shouldn't even do it then). —David Levy 17:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with the hook. It's obviously clear that two people are being discussed; the use of the name twice clearly implies that there are two people being disucssed. It might be a problem for somebody not familiar with the rules of English grammar, but this is, in fact, the English Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- So you assert that JoelWhy is not familiar with the rules of English grammar.
- I couldn't disagree more. The wording is unconventional, no matter how one interprets it. When discussing two different people with the same name, the normal approach is to plainly state this fact. The hook's author intentionally obfuscated a key detail as a gag. —David Levy 22:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Unconventional grammar isn't necessarily a direct attempt to deceive, inveigle and obfuscate. As long as it's not incorrect or strictly against MOS, then it works to promote interest (and, by turn, further editing) in the relevant articles, which is the point of DYK in the first place. I see nothing wrong with a "Who's on first" approach to hooks if it generates interest and attention in order to foster content generation. GRAPPLE X 22:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, I mentioned the unconventional wording in response to the Bushranger's assertion that it "clearly [implied] that there are two people being discussed" and shouldn't confuse someone "familiar with the rules of English grammar".
- I'm not suggesting that it's never appropriate to deviate from a conventional approach; I'm refuting the Bushranger's claim that the hook contained a standard, straightforward structure.
- Secondly, I wouldn't say that this was an effort to "deceive", but it clearly was meant to obfuscate a key detail that ordinarily would be conveyed. We know that this led to confusion on the part of JoelWhy, an experienced editor. We don't know how many others — including those not intimately familiar with Wikipedia's main page formatting and those who couldn't see the "two bolded items" (on account of being blind) — were confused.
- Given the fact that our mission is to disseminate information (not deliberately withhold it in a manner that misleads or perplexes readers, even if this has entertainment value), I see something very wrong with it. —David Levy 00:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Unconventional grammar isn't necessarily a direct attempt to deceive, inveigle and obfuscate. As long as it's not incorrect or strictly against MOS, then it works to promote interest (and, by turn, further editing) in the relevant articles, which is the point of DYK in the first place. I see nothing wrong with a "Who's on first" approach to hooks if it generates interest and attention in order to foster content generation. GRAPPLE X 22:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any problem with the hook. It's obviously clear that two people are being discussed; the use of the name twice clearly implies that there are two people being disucssed. It might be a problem for somebody not familiar with the rules of English grammar, but this is, in fact, the English Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Notability banner
In the course of working on an article this past week for DYK (still working on it), I came across a stub article, The Royal Oak, Monmouth, that had a notability banner. The article had only one source and was rather limited. As I thought the subject of the article was notable, I set about researching the topic and substantially increased the number of references and text to try to save the article. At some point, I realized that the article appeared to qualify for a DYK expansion (although I've never done one before - hopefully, I'm not wrong) and submitted it. I felt comfortable removing the stub banner. However, there is the notability banner that was assigned in May 2012. Do I need to petition someone in a different section of Wikipedia to review the article and remove the notability banner? Or will that be part of the DYK process? I don't want the banner to scare off a potential reviewer from looking at the nomination. Thank you. Anne (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's part of the reviewing process. The banner needs to go before the hook appears on the front page. For now I had a look and added a book ref. If you can find one or two solid references to it in independent sources, I'd add them and remove the banner. Google Books won't let me see enough of all the relevant histories of Monmouthshire. Right now, a lot of the references are to sites affiliated with the pub; I'm not saying any are bad, but it could do with a little more from outside sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
QPQ reviews
The rules state that anyone with five or more DYKs needs to do a Quid Pro Quo review when they self-nominate. I'm seeing a lot of self-noms that do not have a QPQ, but how do we know? Wikipedians by number of DYKs is anyone with 25 DYK or more. And even that seems to be updated only by any editor who wants to update their own record. What about those with less? I, for instance, only have 12 DYK, so I wouldn't show up on that list. Is there a way we can easily check? Maile66 (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Usually, users archive their DYK's on their userpages, or talk pages. Maybe a check on that places?. —Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 21:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, in some cases I've done that. I've been finding that some with multiple DYKs on their talk page don't keep track. But absence of a user page DYK record does not mean they don't have any. There should be a centralized list somewhere, or perhaps something we could access on Toolserver that would automatically bring up a current list. Maile66 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Toolserver has a couple of imperfect tools, which were mentioned here about five months ago: this tool, which shows all the times the DYKUpdateBot left a DYK congrats notice on the user's talk page (and archives) for the user in question (in this case, preloaded with mine, but you can adjust it), but it has no way of distinguishing who nominated. If the creator/expander wasn't also the nominator, it doesn't count, but will be listed anyway. There's also this page creation check tool; enter the username and select "Template" as the Namespace. The ones starting "Did you know nominations/" are the ones to look at: they might count as they're DYK nominations started by the user, though only if they were also created/expanded by said user (check by clicking on the link). This only goes back a couple of years since template automation began. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- For this purpose, not even a year. Transclusion started in July 2011 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- The first one, the Snottywong Tool, is exactly what I had in mind. Thank you. Maile66 (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just remember that Shubinator's DYKUpdateBot only came to life in February 2010, so DYK credits issued before that won't be reflected. —Bruce1eetalk 13:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's also not 100% accurate, as it says I have 13 DYKs, but I've had 14 DYK credits on my talk page. Moswento talky 14:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- For what I wanted it for, it's fine. I'm only concerned about the 5-DYK QPQ rule. A 2-year time span is good enough for me. I'm not the CIA. I'm thinking that if there is a question in my mind about the QPQ on any nomination, I'll just move on to review something else. Maile66 (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Crisco; I didn't do my first DYK until last fall, so for me there's always been transclusion. ;-) Moswento, I'm also missing one from my DYK count (shows 18 of 19); the truant is my eleventh from mid-February. Maile66, I've found people to be honest when I ask if they've previously submitted at least five of their own articles. (Assuming they can remember.) Or another reviewer will chime in. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset - I'm actually surprised that you only have 19 DYKs! I see you so much on my watchlist promoting DYK nominations that I assumed you were some kind of supreme DYK veteran. Moswento talky
- That tool does seem to work accuratly on me so I think that for all intents and purposes for finding out how many DYK credits someone has, it would make a handy tool to be placed on the DYK noms page. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset - I'm actually surprised that you only have 19 DYKs! I see you so much on my watchlist promoting DYK nominations that I assumed you were some kind of supreme DYK veteran. Moswento talky
- Toolserver has a couple of imperfect tools, which were mentioned here about five months ago: this tool, which shows all the times the DYKUpdateBot left a DYK congrats notice on the user's talk page (and archives) for the user in question (in this case, preloaded with mine, but you can adjust it), but it has no way of distinguishing who nominated. If the creator/expander wasn't also the nominator, it doesn't count, but will be listed anyway. There's also this page creation check tool; enter the username and select "Template" as the Namespace. The ones starting "Did you know nominations/" are the ones to look at: they might count as they're DYK nominations started by the user, though only if they were also created/expanded by said user (check by clicking on the link). This only goes back a couple of years since template automation began. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, in some cases I've done that. I've been finding that some with multiple DYKs on their talk page don't keep track. But absence of a user page DYK record does not mean they don't have any. There should be a centralized list somewhere, or perhaps something we could access on Toolserver that would automatically bring up a current list. Maile66 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Sourcing standards
This has its genesis in {{Did you know nominations/Film capacitor}}. We have an article here with 108 inline citations but it is a huge article – despite the number of citations, about 75% of its paragraphs are unsourced (the fact for the hook is sourced of course). The reviewer has rejected the DYK on this basis. If this rejection is warranted, so be it. However, the issue that drew me to post here is that the DYK rules do not provide for this. We should not have a standard in operation that takes people by surprise. If the DYK rules provided clarity, I would have then advised the new user who created this article of the issue before the article was moved to the mainspace, so that his decision to do so was made with eyes wide open. If this is now the standard, we need to say it. More about this on the linked nomination page. Your thoughts?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- The article fails to meet rule D2 on Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. In essence, that rule calls for a reasonable effort to provide inline sources to support the article content. DYK does not require that every word in the article be vetted for sourcing, but the rule says that we don't highlight content that is in serious need of citations.
- As for the Film capacitor article, it does have many inline citations, but those citations are clustered together in certain parts of the article, while other parts of the article are completely without citations. The reader is given no clue as to where vast parts of the article came from -- for example, what is the basis for the sections "Overview of construction and features" and "Internal structure to increase voltage ratings"? An article that does not provide any indication of the sources for a large fraction of its content is not ready to be featured on the main page in DYK. --Orlady (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Orlady, it's not my article. Every sentence I add to articles has a source. The focus of my post is not that this shouldn't be rejected. It's that we need transparency; a "rule" must be in the rules where the rules are posted or it is no rule at all. You've pointed me to a cobweb filled hidden passage that even calls itself the "unwritten rules." This reminds of the plans for Earth's destruction in Hitchhiker's Guide:
- "But the plans were on display..."
- "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
- "That's the display department."
- "With a flashlight."
- "Ah, well, the lights had probably gone."
- "So had the stairs."
- "But, look, you found the notice, didn't you?"
- "Yes, yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'.”
- If we have enough DYK nominations, I'm all for it; indeed, it is obvious that a criterion for inclusion that favors better sourced content, if sustainable, should be in the rules. I am also pissed off that this was hidden in such a way that a new user was misled by me and has been prejudiced by the secreting of what should be a core rule to a disused corner.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is that an article at WP:DYK needs to be fully sourced. If an article is not fully sourced, it cannot be a DYK. Beyond making the article factually accurate based on sources, it makes it at least easier to check for plagiarism. This policy appears to have been in place for a while and I fully support it. If it is a question of whether or not an article is properly sourced and some one wants to argue it, tossing on a fact tag that isn't resolved makes it inelgible until the problem is dealt with. --LauraHale (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand your post, or that is to say, it doesn't seem responsive: So you agree with me that we should add this to the actual rules and not have it codified somewhere where the vast majority of people who might need to see it, won't?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding is that an article at WP:DYK needs to be fully sourced. If an article is not fully sourced, it cannot be a DYK. Beyond making the article factually accurate based on sources, it makes it at least easier to check for plagiarism. This policy appears to have been in place for a while and I fully support it. If it is a question of whether or not an article is properly sourced and some one wants to argue it, tossing on a fact tag that isn't resolved makes it inelgible until the problem is dealt with. --LauraHale (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It may be time to combine the 2 lists of rules. "At least one reference per paragraph" has been a DYK rule forever; although the last effort to rewrite the rules (by Tony1) caused considerable discussion over the purpose of DYK (full disclosure: I'm one of those who finds nothing wrong or even surprising with its having multiple purposes, including both rewarding new articles and rewarding expansion of existing articles), having the rules be clearly set out all in one place is only tangentially related to that particular bone of contention. For what it's worth, Tony1 removed the following sentence from the main rules page: "Uncited and poorly cited articles will not be chosen." That corresponds to the following in the memo/checklist for reviewers that appears when you go to edit a nomination template: "cites sources with inline citations". Personally, when I review a DYK, no matter its length, I always say what needs to be done to meet the rules in my opinion - and in a case where more references are needed, I frequently just add them. The length of the article doesn't matter, but entire sections lacking inline cites means someone needs to fix it. That doesn't mean it's irrevocably failed - the DYK project almost always involves a collaboration to get the article eligible. And if the article writer is new to either Wikipedia or DYK, there are usually people willing to help (whether the nominator can or not). Also, there's no implication that the article wasn't ready to be moved to mainspace. DYK has to have tighter standards in several respects because of the Main Page exposure. All that said . . . should I draft a combined version of all the rules, or is there someone else willing to have a try? (Always recognizing that folks may wind up preferring to keep it at the "general overview ... and extra page with more specifics" approach we have now, possibly with a better title for the "more specifics".) --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- If implemented that would be great Yngvadottir, but sometimes when you expand a request you get opposition to the larger change. So just to be clear, I obviously would not oppose more generally folding those "unwritten rules" that merit inclusion into the central ruleset, but I am certainly asking that we add clarity specifically regarding this core sourcing issue to the central ruleset, regardless of whether others are folded in.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've seen acrimonious discussions here over lots of stuff, so yup . . . and there may be valid points agin it that I haven't thought of. (Or preferred candidates to do it '-) ) But I think this is just the latest sign that Tony1's rewrite (and the considerable further tweaking since) didn't do the trick. So I'm starting a separate section below to gather responses to the idea. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- If implemented that would be great Yngvadottir, but sometimes when you expand a request you get opposition to the larger change. So just to be clear, I obviously would not oppose more generally folding those "unwritten rules" that merit inclusion into the central ruleset, but I am certainly asking that we add clarity specifically regarding this core sourcing issue to the central ruleset, regardless of whether others are folded in.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It may be time to combine the 2 lists of rules. "At least one reference per paragraph" has been a DYK rule forever; although the last effort to rewrite the rules (by Tony1) caused considerable discussion over the purpose of DYK (full disclosure: I'm one of those who finds nothing wrong or even surprising with its having multiple purposes, including both rewarding new articles and rewarding expansion of existing articles), having the rules be clearly set out all in one place is only tangentially related to that particular bone of contention. For what it's worth, Tony1 removed the following sentence from the main rules page: "Uncited and poorly cited articles will not be chosen." That corresponds to the following in the memo/checklist for reviewers that appears when you go to edit a nomination template: "cites sources with inline citations". Personally, when I review a DYK, no matter its length, I always say what needs to be done to meet the rules in my opinion - and in a case where more references are needed, I frequently just add them. The length of the article doesn't matter, but entire sections lacking inline cites means someone needs to fix it. That doesn't mean it's irrevocably failed - the DYK project almost always involves a collaboration to get the article eligible. And if the article writer is new to either Wikipedia or DYK, there are usually people willing to help (whether the nominator can or not). Also, there's no implication that the article wasn't ready to be moved to mainspace. DYK has to have tighter standards in several respects because of the Main Page exposure. All that said . . . should I draft a combined version of all the rules, or is there someone else willing to have a try? (Always recognizing that folks may wind up preferring to keep it at the "general overview ... and extra page with more specifics" approach we have now, possibly with a better title for the "more specifics".) --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Please see Creating Editor's response. This is the talk page of the Editor who created the article. See the bottom part of the section, where they find out about the rejection. This editor wants to bring the article up to DYK eligibility on the citations. They need assistance with the English language. The nominator stated on the above-referenced DYK template that the article's subject matter is not his area of expertise. I think this has been confusing for Elcap, due to the language difference, and I'm hoping someone can help this Editor bring the article up to where it can be looked at again. If this Editor can be assisted to add the necessary citations, I think this article could be exemplary for the Main page.Maile66 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I do speak German, and I like to help, but I don't speak the technical language of the article, therefore wonder what I could actually do, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Start a dialogue? Is it possible for you on this English Wikipedia to write in the German language? I think helping that editor understand the DYK process, in his own language, is what's really needed. If you read what he wrote, he seems to have had decades in his field. I think he needs a German language version of this process. And after that, depending on what the sources are, maybe we need someone who can read German to have a second look at the DYK sourcing Maile66 (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at this article further, I think someone needs to help this editor understand about Bare URLS. The references section has been tagged for that way back in March 2012 (three months before this was ever put up for nomination). There are over 30 bare urls as references. Many of those URLs go to a manufacturer site, some without specific info on the subject matter. The article itself is in English. And the spot checking I did on references seem to be in English. But I think there's a lot of work to be done on this article in the way of referencing. Maybe it wasn't totally ready for Prime Time, but it needs help. Maile66 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Start a dialogue? Is it possible for you on this English Wikipedia to write in the German language? I think helping that editor understand the DYK process, in his own language, is what's really needed. If you read what he wrote, he seems to have had decades in his field. I think he needs a German language version of this process. And after that, depending on what the sources are, maybe we need someone who can read German to have a second look at the DYK sourcing Maile66 (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Rewrite the rules as one list?
As seen in the above section on sourcing standards, I think we've reached the point where it would be good to have the DYK rules all in one place. Thoughts? And any better suggestions than me for person to draft it? --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Great idea. This is one of many things at DYK that need to be updated. Somewhat like biological evolution, the evolution of DYK has left us with some organs that don't work as well as if they had been designed for their current purposes, as well as some vestigial organs that no longer serve any function.
- The next step, IMO, should be to reorganize the rules -- specifically, to combine all of the current rules in one place. Don't try to change any substantive content until after the new organization is in place. IMO, the "rules" should be consolidated onto the page that is now called "Supplementary guidelines", which should be renamed. Meanwhile, project links should be revised to describe WP:Did you know as something like "DYK project main page" instead of the current name of "Rules".
- All we need is a brave volunteer! --Orlady (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it just be a case of updating this page? (which I haven't noticed before today). Or am I missing something obvious? Moswento talky 15:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, I hadn't seen that either. And I don't think Tony1 had. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's actually linked as 'further information' on the DYK main rules page: see here Moswento talky 15:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I had forgotten about that page. However, it's not a substitute for the supplemental rules -- it's a second independent extension to the "rules". (All the more reason to reorganize and consolidate.) --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- It does look, and is labeled, as if it was meant to be comprehensive - but it's got out of date. I repeat the offer to attempt a rewrite (though not today, have to clear the decks a bit first), but I'll be perfectly happy to be told no :-D Yngvadottir (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I had forgotten about that page. However, it's not a substitute for the supplemental rules -- it's a second independent extension to the "rules". (All the more reason to reorganize and consolidate.) --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's actually linked as 'further information' on the DYK main rules page: see here Moswento talky 15:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, I hadn't seen that either. And I don't think Tony1 had. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it just be a case of updating this page? (which I haven't noticed before today). Or am I missing something obvious? Moswento talky 15:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
DYKCheck option, perhaps
FYI on this: User:Shubinator#DYKCheck_option.2C_perhaps. I can't imagine this would require consensus, but I'm puttng it here just in case. Presently, the DYKCheck is supposed to notice if the article has no citations at all. I'm asking is that the DYKCheck have an option that notices if not all paragraphs are cited. Then it would be an automatic check. Maile66 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea.I'd be interested to see if/how this would work in practice. Moswento talky 21:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)- I'm not convinced that is such a good idea. Checking to see if an article is adequately and appropriately referenced is a job better done by humans. Humans shouldn't have much difficulty scanning a page for footnotes to see if every paragraph has one. Humans are, however, better than robots at determining whether a particular footnote is a reference citation rather than simply a "note". Also, humans are much better qualified to determine whether an unsourced paragraph is OK as is (this happens sometimes) or if the article cries out for more sources in spite of having one footnote per paragraph. Also, additional checking probably would slow DYKcheck down (and possibly take resources away from the 'bot's other tasks); as it is, the bot sometimes takes a long time to process long-ish article histories. I'd rather have a tool that provides good automated checks on article histories than one that counts footnotes. --Orlady (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, I think I may have replied in haste yesterday. I think there may be some value in Maile66's proposal, so I'm still interested in if/how it would work, but there are problems as noted by Orlady. More than anything else, it might encourage a kind of lazy reviewing, checking the number of references without noting their quality or adequacy. Moswento talky 07:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Technically, I think this is possible and wouldn't add much computation time (I don't think the added time would be noticeable). From a reviewer's perspective, I agree with Orlady that humans should be checking this anyways. If enough folks would like to see this option though, I can definitely take a shot at it. Shubinator (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- My perspective is that this would only be just an additional aid. Not everybody on Wikipedia has the same vision capabilities. And those who are going to be lazy about doing a review, are going to be lazy anyway. I would think they'd be more likely to try to slip past checking for copyvio, which takes more effort. Maile66 (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Technically, I think this is possible and wouldn't add much computation time (I don't think the added time would be noticeable). From a reviewer's perspective, I agree with Orlady that humans should be checking this anyways. If enough folks would like to see this option though, I can definitely take a shot at it. Shubinator (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, I think I may have replied in haste yesterday. I think there may be some value in Maile66's proposal, so I'm still interested in if/how it would work, but there are problems as noted by Orlady. More than anything else, it might encourage a kind of lazy reviewing, checking the number of references without noting their quality or adequacy. Moswento talky 07:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that is such a good idea. Checking to see if an article is adequately and appropriately referenced is a job better done by humans. Humans shouldn't have much difficulty scanning a page for footnotes to see if every paragraph has one. Humans are, however, better than robots at determining whether a particular footnote is a reference citation rather than simply a "note". Also, humans are much better qualified to determine whether an unsourced paragraph is OK as is (this happens sometimes) or if the article cries out for more sources in spite of having one footnote per paragraph. Also, additional checking probably would slow DYKcheck down (and possibly take resources away from the 'bot's other tasks); as it is, the bot sometimes takes a long time to process long-ish article histories. I'd rather have a tool that provides good automated checks on article histories than one that counts footnotes. --Orlady (talk) 04:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Warning: declining consent causes towers to collapse
In the sixth hook of Queue 3, the word "because" is wrong. Maybe it could be replaced with "after". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agree that "because" is not appropriate. The building might have collapsed anyway, for all we know. I think "after" is a reasonable substitution. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Article in Prep 4 too short
Ida Galli currently in Prep 4 only has 869 characters of readable prose. —Bruce1eetalk 09:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, aside from the filmography, there's not much there. I pulled it out of the prep area. --Orlady (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- When a fundamental part of the review is wrong like this was, does that affect the QPQ credit? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Question mark is unquestionably misplaced
- The second hook of Queue 2 has a misplaced question mark. It should be on the end rather than inside the quotation. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Also in Queue 2: "Trampolining" in the fifth hook should be lower case. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Done — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Sound file
How should sound-files be included in DYK nominations?
This question is motivated by the standard guitar-tuning sound-file in Template:Did you know nominations/Augmented-fourths tuning.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- If the sound file, like the images you include, does not appear in the nominated article(s), then it is not eligible for use with a DYK hook and shouldn't be included in the nomination. I rather doubt that you could include both an image and a sound file if the latter are allowed; I imagine it would be one or the other. Someone else might know whether sound files are allowed on the main page, and under what conditions (the file in question is from Wikimedia Commons, which means copyright would not be an issue). Incidentally, the caption of the diagram reproduced on the right is incorrect: it explicitly shows three perfect fourths and one major third, with nary a perfect fifth to be found. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your error-catching and advice. I updated the articles and hook(s) to have the image and sound file in question.
- The question about sound-files on the main page remains open....
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't mean to advise you to include the standard tuning diagram and sound file in those two articles. While both do belong in the standard tuning article, neither truly belongs in those other articles: what should be there in each is a diagram for that particular system and/or a sound file demonstrating that system. That said, we still need someone to chime in on sound files. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the diagram of the standard-tuning's mix of musical intervals does belong in the articles on regular tunings, because it provides context. Similarly, readers can hear the major-third among the perfect fourths, which again provides context. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I didn't mean to advise you to include the standard tuning diagram and sound file in those two articles. While both do belong in the standard tuning article, neither truly belongs in those other articles: what should be there in each is a diagram for that particular system and/or a sound file demonstrating that system. That said, we still need someone to chime in on sound files. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Yet another cool game....
I do like the idea of subject quasi-flash-mobs on the mainpage - for instance, everyone try to find a hook or a topic with a certain attribute - so one set of hooks might all contain the word "blue" or "circle" or "triangle" or something. These'd have to be pretty broad but I am just throwing this up as a tentative idea....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I also like this idea, although we'd have to be careful not to do something that would irritate the general reader. Moswento talky 15:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- That does sound like fun! I'm in! :) Miyagawa (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I like the idea of that. I'm in. If this was earlier I would have maybe said use the word Monmouth as there seemed to be a lot of them around (actually, there still are a few in the list so maybe it could done with that word.) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- That does sound like fun! I'm in! :) Miyagawa (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Currently, the image in Prep 2 and Prep 4 appear to be lacking a caption. This should be fixed. Chris857 (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I added a caption for the image in prep 4. Then I looked at the image in prep 1, which also lacks a caption. I found a potentially serious problem with File:OliverEllsworth.jpg. The current image was uploaded on top of another different image and some of the sourcing information wasn't changed. The image is not from the URL indicated.
- Furthermore, I've not yet found the source for the image there. I think it might actually be a flipped-over and retouched version of the image at the Supreme Court history website, a portrait by William R. Wheeler and an image that is at Commons as File:Oliver ellsworth.jpeg.
- The current image cannot be used in DYK without accurate sourcing information. However, File:Oliver ellsworth.jpeg could be substituted in the article and hook. --Orlady (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- I"ve changed the image in Oliver Ellsworth and the hook. --Orlady (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Artist's Studio—Look Mickey, Look Mickey
Template:Did you know nominations/Artist's Studio—Look Mickey, Look Mickey was approved a few days ago and has been the oldest approved hook for some time. Since then a total of 6 sets of hooks have been promoted to various prep areas. Can we get this hook moved into the next prep area?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- It was approved 34 hours before you posted this section, not a "few days". I don't see the big rush, nor why you'd want to limit its chances of being a lead hook; Prep 1 features a painting, so it's a bit soon to run another one. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ditto. I've had a few sit for a while, especially when there are a number of other articles in the same general topic area. --LauraHale (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- The approved (and preferred by me) hook does not use a picture.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger , yes and I've had similar situations where pictures were not an issue. It all depends on who is loading the prep area and making sure a mixture of things get included. I've had at least one sit a week. These things happen and it is often not deliberate. --LauraHale (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- That'll make it easier to slot in, then. I'll certainly keep my eye out for it the next time I'm putting together a prep area. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- I am just saying it has been six sets by three different people. I am wondering what is going on.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- The approved (and preferred by me) hook does not use a picture.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ditto. I've had a few sit for a while, especially when there are a number of other articles in the same general topic area. --LauraHale (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was going to make this a lead hook this am but all 4 prep sets have been full all day. I generally try to use the older approved hooks simply because the nominators/authors have been waiting longer. That being said, sitting for 1-2 days after approval is not unusual at all. PumpkinSky talk 01:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- You are the second person who is confused about the lead-eligibility of this nomination (which probably explains whey it was not chosen yet). The approved (and preferred) hook is not lead-eligible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- The noms that go on and on often do get very confusing to follow. PumpkinSky talk 02:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- You are the second person who is confused about the lead-eligibility of this nomination (which probably explains whey it was not chosen yet). The approved (and preferred) hook is not lead-eligible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Tony, it's mostly bad luck. Mentoz86 built four of the six in question, the oldest two and most recent two, and since your hook was approved by Mentoz, that prevents it from being selected for a prep area by Mentoz. Hooks that I've approved have had to wait when I was especially active in prep area building. Of the two remaining sets, one was assembled by me: in my case, I glanced at the top and thought a picture was involved, though even if I hadn't made that error, I already had a four-article multihook from the special holding area that needed to be in that set, and I wouldn't have wanted to use another long multihook. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- That is correct. When I built the last prep-set, the three oldest approved hooks was approved by me. Even though they could fit into the sets I built, I didn't use them as I was "ineligible" to select them. Just wait and see, it's not always easy to find seven hooks with the right mix. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Black River National Forest Scenic Byway Black River National Forest Scenic Byway
Black River National Forest Scenic Byway is now in two places: the June 20 special holding section, and also the June 15 section where it originally was.Maile66 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I thought I'd cut-and-pasted it, but it appears I copy-and-pasted it. It should be fixed now. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I have closed Template:Did you know nominations/Indian People's Tribunal as "no consensus to promote after 60 days due to continued close paraphrasing issues". Because of the controversial nature of the discussion, I'm posting my close here for review by the DYK community. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- The Indian People's Tribunal (IPT) is a non-governmental organization headed by a panel of retired judges that conducts inquiries into social issues. The article mainly describes these inquiries and the findings given in the various IPT reports. There has been one main thread in this DYK discussion: how should the article present quotations or close paraphrases from the IPT reports? It is appropriate to briefly quote or closely paraphrase the reports, and would not be appropriate to "loosely paraphrase" them, since the article is about what the IPT reports said about events rather than the events themselves. This does not seem to be in dispute. The question is: how?
- The guideline at WP:Plagiarism says "when quoting or paraphrasing very closely the careful use of in-text attribution may be required along with an inline citation". The article follows this rule, as in, "The report documented the use of brutal and indiscriminate force against slum dwellers in Mumbai."[16] There is no question of plagiarism and the use is fair as a series of short reviews. The sticking points are the use of quotation marks, where the report admittedly did not always follow MOS:QUOTE, and the choice of close paraphrasing versus direct quotation, where the policies and guidelines are obscure.
- It has taken a long time to resolve this issue. Each time an objection has been raised the offending text has been quickly changed or removed (sometimes under protest!) Then there has been a long delay before another objection. Twice, it took approval of the article to trigger an objection. I sense no concern with the subject, organization, neutrality, grammar, sourcing and so on, or with the selection of excerpts from the report, just with the way the excerpts are presented. I also sense (and this may be unfair) little interest in collaborating on improving the article. User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao helpfully added categories early on, as he often does. Otherwise I have been the only contributor so far despite the long-running discussion. There must be a more efficient approach. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Frankly, I have been always hating the close phrasing stuff for DYK's. DYK is the newest content, hence close phrasing need not be an issue. These days, DYK has been sounding like GAN. I did pointed out there [at the DYK discussion], doing the same here too. An article nominated for DYK usually only have a maximum of 1 or 2 contributors, which is not in case for GA, and that it makes difficult for an editor/volunteer to bang his head for his/her volunteerism. Things must work smoother. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 04:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
June 8 R. L. Holdsworth nomination
I see some issues here:
- When I click on "Review or Comment", it brings up a blank page as if the nomination template was never created.
- Same thing, if you go directly to the Template:Did you know nominations/R.L. Holdsworth
- There seems to be an issue with the photo copyright, but nobody notified DoscoinDoon (talk · contribs) on their talk page.
- The Notes section of the article itself is primarily bare URLs, which could be listed on the Comment section if this template worked.
It appears from the user's talk page, that they're new to Wikipedia as of March 2012. Maile66 (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I figured out how to fix the problem that was making the nomination template impossible to edit, and dropped the user a note that an issue had been raised there about the image. The actual article now needs to be reviewed - we always have more pics submitted than slots that can use them, so problems with the picture have no bearing on eligibility of the article unless the picture actually needs to be removed from the article, or the hook depends on the image. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
More old unreviewed hooks
All the hook templates from May and early June that haven't recently been updated are now either looking for reviewers with a red arrow icon, or marked with the orange "X" icon. Here are the ones that need reviewing the most:
- May 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Chipping Norton set - approved by Presidentman, 23:46, 21 June 2012 UTC
- May 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Bandung Raya - approved by Presidentman, 23:49, 21 June 2012 UTC
- May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Barack Obama on Twitter - approved by Presidentman, 23:52, 21 June 2012 UTC
- May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Transformers G1: Awakening - approved by Presidentman, 23:54, 21 June 2012 UTC
- May 28: Template:Did you know nominations/4 2012 Pulitzer Prize Winners — this one is a four-article multihook which should probably be treated as a single hook, not as four separate hooks
- May 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Azibiidae
- May 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Yokohama Dreamland Monorail
- June 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Kerala Nasrani Christian music
June 2: Template:Did you know nominations/High-speed railway to Eilat- June 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Aurochs' head issue
- June 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Lunigiana revolt
We're at the point where we barely have enough hooks approved to fill the vacant spots in the prep areas and queues. Getting these older ones done would definitely help. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- One down, ten to go. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Another four in very quick succession. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Me Haces Falta Queue 1
Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Me_Haces_Falta was DECEPTIVELY and blindly olosed on the pretense that i dint responsed. How on earth a silly comment like that could have passed i have no idea, but there WAS a pending response that the creator dint answer...so its NOT ready. in the meantime while under discussion this should not go up. Please pull that.
- It ironically comes at the same time as when i ANSWERED a question and it was closed as no consenss because of a lazy reviewer.
- I agree with Tomica (the reviewer in question at the article); plot does not need a source. I've looked at the use of iTunes, and it is for download release dates, mainly. iTunes seems reliable for that. I would appreciate more AGFing and fewer personal attacks (like the ones at both the nomination page and my talk page).
- Regarding the commercial nature of iTunes (and Amazon, for books), that doesn't make it unreliable, especially for something as simple as a release date. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Lihaas, can you please calm down, it's not like the end of the world happens. What actually is you didn't commented on the DYK for "Me Haces Falta" for more then 7 days, meaning other reviewer should take your role there so I did. And yeah, the DYK is good to pass, since we don't need a source for short summary music video plots or films. Got it? And for iTunes, as Crisco mentioned is a perfectly reliable source when dates come in question. And trust me your comments allude on WP:PERSONAL ATTACK and WP:SHOUT. Be aware that Wikipedia has some policies. — Tomica (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Let's be accurate here. The most recent comment on the Me Haces Falta review had been from Lihaas, meaning that it was up to Status to come back to the template review to say that the "mixed" issue—a good point, frankly, since two reviews do not a "mixed" make—had been fixed. A further pointing out that the iTunes sourcing was adequate for the purpose, which was released dates, could well have settled matters. Instead, while Lihaas was waiting for Status's response, or indeed any at all, you come in and pass it without a "hope you don't mind". That is inappropriate, and I'm surprised you don't acknowledge that it was. Better would have been to point out that Status had made the requested fix, so Lihaas could finish the review.
- I'm not condoning Lihaas's response above, which was excessive and against site standards, but I would have been quite annoyed if you'd done the same thing to a review I was awaiting a response on. I hope you'll act with more care and consideration in future. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was not further discussing the iTunes "issue", as it was not an issue what-so-ever. I already told the user that, and wasn't going on about it anymore. I left the user several comments on their talk page asking them to leave a response, and they failed to for a week. It wasn't even as if the user was inactive for a week, the user was actively editing. Statυs (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Also, reviewing something someone else hasn't touched in a week to get it moving on is not inappropriate. Statυs (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- To those of us who look over ongoing reviews, the fact that there was no response from you in the review meant that we had nothing further to respond to if we felt that a comment could help get things moving. Always put a response in the review itself when you've addressed an issue brought up in that review: that's where an "I've fixed this" belongs. Regardless, I'm disappointed that the posts to Lihaas's talk page did not gain a response.
- Also, reviewing something someone else hasn't touched in a week to get it moving on is not inappropriate. Statυs (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- One week is the time the reviewer has to wait before taking further action, but the reviewer isn't always around when 168 hours have just elapsed to take the next step. Giving another day or two before swooping in is only polite; better is to give an "it's been a week; what now" query before taking over. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Source reliability opinion
At the moment, the DYK nomination of Template:Did you know nominations/Manfred von Richthofen (General) hangs on this source, which is the only source cited for the Early life and Later life sections. Is it okay, or does it violate WP:RS, especially the self-published part. (My thought is that it doesn't qualify as a reliable source, but I wanted to check before giving a final no.) Thanks for your insights. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- The source in question appears to be a WP:USERGENERATED webpage by an individual interested in Prussian military history. Examination of the site even finds a disclaimer where the page's author disavows "ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR CORRECTNESS, COMPLETENESS OR QUALITY ETC OF ANY INFORMATION WITHIN MY HOMEPAGE" (bottom of this page). With this information I must agree with BlueMoonSet's opinion that this source does not qualify as a reliable source under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Allen3 talk 17:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) Sorry, I disagree, ALT7 intentionally does not rely on that source, but on ref #4. I am unfortunately not in a position to read the OFFLINE sources which most likely support the content. The article it is a translation (not by me) from WP de. Before rejecting a DYK about a historic person notable enough to receive Prussia's highest order I would ask you to contact Project Germany and/or Project World War I, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- The point is not about ALT7, but about the DYK requirement that all paragraphs must be sourced. With both Later life and Early life only sourced from the Viser site, once you remove the citations—which I have just done—there's no source at all for those sections. I frankly like a number of the hooks, especially those that bring in the Red Baron, and appreciate the effort you've put into saving it, but if you want it saved, I think you need to be the one to pursue contacts with those projects. I'm happy to put a one-week hold on further action for you to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I will do that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
DYK sourcing question on my own nomiination
I just created, and nominated, an article on Marie Bankhead Owen. I have a lengthy Bibliography section on works she authored. The sourcing on that is not noted, but it's from the Library of Congress online catalog, Amazon.com, and Open Library. Do I need to notate these sources in that section? Maile66 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Speed reviewing
I've been posting lists of old articles that need reviewing, but if this is the response I've done my last one.
Four articles were reviewed in the space of eight minutes by Presidentman. All four received a tick and a "Good to go!" comment. They are:
- Template:Did you know nominations/Chipping Norton set - approved by Presidentman, 23:46, 21 June 2012 UTC
- Template:Did you know nominations/Bandung Raya - approved by Presidentman, 23:49, 21 June 2012 UTC
- Template:Did you know nominations/Barack Obama on Twitter - approved by Presidentman, 23:52, 21 June 2012 UTC
- Template:Did you know nominations/Transformers G1: Awakening - approved by Presidentman, 23:54, 21 June 2012 UTC
I don't see how it's possible to do four complete reviews that quickly: hook sourcing and accuracy, close paraphrasing, reliable article sourcing, all that stuff. I should also point out that Presidentman had previously approved Barack Obama on Twitter nearly three weeks ago, after which other reviewers found significant problems with the article. I have little confidence that these issues were taken into consideration during Presidentman's second review.
I won't have time tonight to look into these any further; I hope someone with longer DYK experience of issues like this can take the time to see whether these reviews are adequate for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Your choice about listing the old articles. But I think it's helpful to have them sorted out somewhere to remind editors that there are old stragglers out there. Maile66 (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- And now the three of the four have been promoted into Prep 4, the next one in line for queuing. I don't think this is wise. I'm going to move the three into Prep 3, the last one in line to be queued, in the hopes that this can be discussed with some thoroughness first. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Update: all three moved to Prep 3, and the Barack Obama on Twitter article temporarily de-ticked while this matter is considered. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Cholodny Went model
Currently in the Prep 1 queue: "... that according to the Cholodny Went model, many plants can change their shapes to grow toward the surface ..." The article does mention geotropism and says " the plant shoot will begin to bend toward a light source or toward the surface" linking to this, but that reference doesn't discuss growing toward the surface. It mentions geotropism, but the geotropism article and common sense tell us that plants grow away from the surface, not towards it. Vines that creep on the ground do so only because they aren't strong enough to stand up. Art LaPella (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- I debate that vines do it just because they are not strong enough. Maybe they enjoy creeping on the ground - that is their thing. But I do agree that there may be some language problems and think the article should be pulled back while they are reviewed. I already tweaked one obvious wording problem, changing "symmetric" to "asymmetric". I can take a closer look. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Pulled back from Prep 1 per discussion here, and is back in the DYK nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)