This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
HI there BlueMoonset. Sorry it took me so long to respond.
Güstrow Castle needed additional work and we wanted to get it right. Again, apologies; I didn't mean to come across as ignoring you. --Rosiestep (talk
) 13:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Rosiestep, I appreciate you contacting me now, and I'm glad to see that the article has been moved back to article space. Because this is the first time this sort of move has happened to a DYK, I won't disqualify it. However, it is going to be a problem if such a move happens again: if an article is withdrawn from article space, it can't be eligible for DYK. Also, it strikes me as not only odd but, frankly, inappropriate to move an article out of article space to work on it as a matter of procedure, rather than working on it in place, or even copying it to a sandbox and then copying over the existing material once it's been updated. If this is Rosblofnari's new methodology for working on articles that have issues, it's not compatible with DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Noted. If we move an article out of mainspace, we'll withdraw the nom at the same time. And again, sorry for the hassle factor. I didn't think through the problem it would cause. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I figured that the ramifications might not have been fully realized, which is why I mentioned it, and also why I didn't close the review this time. I've just posted there; the nom will need a new hook, since the article no longer contains some of the material used in the original one. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering (since I respect you as an editor, and I have come across you at GAN before) if you would mind taking an informal look over Clarence Chesterfield Howerton for any issues with a potential GA review, as I feel that I have addressed the issues set out in the GA review. Please don't feel as if you have to do this, but thank you in advance if you do. Thanks, Matty.007 14:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Although if you don't want to do it; would you mind letting me know please? Thanks, Matty.007 20:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Matty.007, I am not interested in taking the time for the depth of look that would be required to identify significant GA issues, though a quick glance shows issues remain. I do recommend that you wait for the current peer review request to be closed before nominating the article. One suggestion: be consistent in your primary measurements. Since Howerton was an American performer, and his measurements would almost certainly have been taken in feet/inches and pounds/ounces, try to go with those. (In fact, you have conflicting information, which is deadly to a GA: your intro and infobox say 0.71m; your Size paragraph says 28 1/2 inches.) To give his measurement in meters and pounds looks odd. Also, there is overlap between the last two sections; neither seems long enough to merit a separate section, so perhaps they should be recombined. (Right now one gives the year of his retirement, the other gives his age at retirement; these pieces of information should be together.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I will try to fix the issues you set out. Thanks, Matty.007 20:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up; I have now fixed those issues. Thanks, Matty.007 20:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I became an associate professor this year, and the increased class load has left me little time for Wikipedia, particularly around mid-term and final exams. I have finally finished grading all the mid-term exams and projects. I see that Beixin culture was rejected due to "close paraphrasing." What does that mean, and when did DYK standards become so demanding that the article might as well be nominated for Good Article status? It was not always this way. Remember that the article must be created or 5x expanded within a five day timespan. Setting the quality bar this high and the time period this short, for volunteer editors who may not have a lot of time for editing, is self-defeating and effectively abandons DYK to the dedicated fans of obscure music genres, video games, and other trivia. I have tried to produce a quality scholarly article about a serious subject. Liangshan Yi (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
"Among the significant problems that aren't getting resolved is the site's skewed coverage: its entries on Pokemon and female porn stars are comprehensive, but its pages on female novelists or places in sub-Saharan Africa are sketchy. Authoritative entries remain elusive. Of the 1,000 articles that the project's own volunteers have tagged as forming the core of a good encyclopedia, most don't earn even Wikipedia's own middle-ranking quality scores."
Noting that Wikipedia "threw out centuries of accepted methods" for compiling an authoritative and comprehensive reference work, the article goes on to detail efforts under Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner to decrease the gender gap and attract new editors ... trying to develop an overall more-diverse editor group. "Because Wikipedia has failed to replenish its supply of editors, its skew toward technical, Western, and male-dominated subject matter has persisted," the article says. Jimmy Wales commented, "The biggest issue is editor diversity." If there aren't confident, new editors coming to Wikipedia with a drive to write great articles about Wikipedia's underrepresented content, then the encyclopedia will not improve, and will be in an eternal state of "decline" in quality ... Liangshan Yi (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Liangshan Yi, Wikipedia has a page—Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing—that explains what it is. Did you look at the text I removed from the article, and do you understand why I removed the bulk of the Artifacts section? The material, in the eyes of two reviewers, was uncomfortably close to material on the cited Encyclopedia Brittanica page, which is copyrighted. This is not a standard peculiar to DYK, GA, or FA: it's a basic Wikipedia tenet. All articles regardless of size need to adhere to this basic standard, and avoid infringement.
Unfortunately, you weren't around when the article was reviewed, nor in the two weeks following; if you had been, we would have been happy to work with you on it; indeed, we typically do, and many of the articles with close paraphrasing issues are fixed and ultimately are approved. Generally, on Wikipedia, a week is considered the standard good faith interval to await a response; if someone responds that they're busy and asks for more time, we rarely refuse. From our perspective, you disappeared and did not respond to our attempts to contact you. Your edit history gave me no encouragement that you were likely to return imminently. Given that there were serious issues, we certainly couldn't approve the nomination if they weren't fixed, and you weren't available to fix them, so we closed the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I did not notice any attempts to contact me, whether by e-mail or another method, after I added the inline citations requested by the first reviewer. In my experience in academic publishing, "close paraphrasing" is acceptable as long as the source is properly cited. I was discouraged by the DYK process. The first reviewer posted the objection about citations and I resolved it thoroughly. Then came another reviewer with a different objection. All objections should be presented in the first review, so that the article writers such as myself can resolve them promptly. Making objections in this piecemeal fashion is not very productive, creates lengthy delays, and could be reasonably perceived as a delaying tactic. I always assume good faith but was given the impression, by these piecemeal objections, that time was not an issue. So I chose to wait until after the mid-term exams and projects had been graded. I am available now. Please reopen the nomination. Liangshan Yi (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Liangshan Yi, I'm declining your request to reopen the nomination. First you say you didn't notice any attempts to contact you after you added the inline citations (October 2 and 8, the latter after the reviewer, Titodutta, pointed out that you'd missed one crucial citation). Then you tell me you were discouraged by the DYK process because a first reviewer mentioned one issue, and then a second reviewer (Yoninah was the second, on October 16) listed a different objection. This is not unusual for DYK, as some reviewers are not as sharp as others—it's a volunteer process—and subsequent reviewers do touch on issues that the first reviewer overlooked. However, these comments were made on October 16, and furthermore, Yoninan posted a notification to your talk page on that date. Any time you viewed Wikipedia after that—and you clearly saw those comments or you wouldn't have mentioned another reviewer—you would have seen the notification of the attempt to contact you on your talk page at the top of your screen until you actually went to the talk page.
It's unfortunate that you decided that the reviewers were attempting to delay your nomination. You could have inquired—and in such a way that wouldn't have seemed like an assumption of lack of good faith—and found out that it wasn't aimed at you, but a normal part of the process. Or, as noted above, you could have noted the impending midterms and asked then for an extension. Issues are discovered all the way through the reviewing process, and hooks are occasionally pulled back from the areas being prepared from the main page, or even from the main page itself, if the review was found to be lacking. Instead, you chose to ignore the review and the request on your talk page until you chose to respond, and by doing so lost your chance for this article. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding close paraphrasing, Wikipedia's rules are, in some regards, more strict than academia, because Wikipedia is a free service: we need to be even more rigorous under those circumstances. So it is not enough to cite the source; the information from it needs to be understood and then put into your own words. Phrasing and order of ideas are both elements that must be considered. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
DYK tagging Good article
I think 1) either DYKbot is making errors to tag a Good article's talk page or b) the process is a bit confusing. I am providing example—
See Talk:Swami Vivekananda
DYKUpdate question mark has been added before "Article milestones". So it reads like "Did you know article milestones" which is impossible, one article can not go to DYK more than once.
DYK credit is almost buried. You have click on "show" twice to see it.
"Check views" etc links are missing.
I am unsure if we should update "Article milsetone date list" Tito☸Dutta 15:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Tito, I guess it's b) confusing, then: that's the way it's always worked on my GAs.
The DYKUpdate question mark is added before "Article milestones" to indicate that that one of these hidden milestones is a DYK. This lets you know whether there's a DYK inside along with the usual status changes involving GA reviews, delistings, FACs, etc. If there isn't a question mark, then DYK isn't involved.
I imagine the DYK credit is buried like that because most people are more interested in the status dates than in what the DYK actually said. If you want the actual text, then you have to click again.
This is always how DYKUpdateBot has behaved if an Article History template was already in place.
I think the idea here is to condense all the Article History information so that part of the talk page doesn't get huge. It was designed back in the day that GA usually came after DYK rather than before; many of the links would later go away, or never get made. It would be risky changing the history list yourself; too many things could go wrong the next time the bot needs to do something to the page. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, the page creator has done nothing to add sourcing to the charts or the hook material, and appears to have relinquished his nomination. Crisco just gave it a red X to remove it from consideration. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at it. Crisco apparently beat you to the punch, but it looks like it's ready to be closed now; I'll do that when I get the chance. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Promote hook?
Say, was wondering if you'd be able to promote the hook on Katherine Ritvo, which was passed for DYK a couple days ago... seems to have been missed. Kind of want to strike while the iron is hot to get this on the main page before it's old news. Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 20:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the note on my talk page. The page creator actually did very little to address the concerns of close paraphrasing that I raised in the DYK review. I just spent some time rewriting the material from the half of the sources that are English-language, to remove the close paraphrasing issue on that score. However, I cannot check the other half of sources that are Serbo-Croatian. Since the page creator showed a definite tendency to lift things verbatim from the English sources, I am hesitant to pass the nomination unless someone can double-check (and rewrite, if necessary) the foreign-language sources. Yoninah (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yoninah, it's a quandary. I'll check with Crisco to see whether he has any advice about a situation like this: obviously, AGF doesn't mean that we have to assume the editor works differently in different languages, but that pervasive problems are just that, pervasive throughout. It was certainly the responsible thing to fix the obvious close paraphrasing, but I'm not sure where we go from here. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Happy Editing
Hello BlueMoonset, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 12:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Blue. I wonder if it would be possible to make the rower hook in this promotion to a different queue, where the image can be used. The image is especially good to have with this hook, IMHO, because his apparently vibrantly healthy image contrasts sharply with the content of the hook -- making it especially hooky. And the image is fine quality. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Epeefleche, the reason I didn't pick this hook for the lead slot is because, frankly, I found the image of Cohen not particularly good. His face is in shadow, which for me made it far from ideal as a picture. The nomination has been sitting there for over half a month without having been selected; I think a second slot it about as good a placement as you're likely to get. I'm sorry you're not happy with it. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Might you ask someone else whose opinion you respect at DYK? I've submitted many DYKs, and understand that not all with images retain them at the queue. But here, he looks extraordinarily healthy in the image (which IMHO was quite good at showing his physique -- the key here). And that really makes the hook hooky. I expect it's the first time I've ever asked for reconsideration at DYK of image inclusion -- but that's why. (I think the hook languished because of the discussion of other issues, actually). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
If you want to ask someone else, you can. I've made what I believe to be the right decision here; I can understand why you believe it's a good image, but it doesn't mean I agree. I'll admit that I'll be annoyed if someone pulls the hook out after I've made my choice, but I'll live with it if it happens. (The hook would have to go to prep 4; if it's prep 3 then it's New Zealand nighttime, which has its own issues.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll post to someone else -- but I wish you wouldn't as you suggest be annoyed if someone else has the same view I have, and a different one than you have. This is a community exercise, and the issue isn't a black-and-white one. Usually the person who expanded the article has far more time and emotion invested in it than the promoter -- but of course that's not the issue at all. I could just as easily say I would be annoyed that you don't share my view -- but hopefully we are above all that. Let's just see what someone says, and hopefully they won't make a decision based on your possible annoyance (or mine).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
The C of E, it looks good, except that the Casualties section, Germany subsection, ends in an external link rather than a proper cite. Once that's fixed, I'll be able to restore the approval. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you moved the Doctor Who DYK to Prep, and changed the wording of the hook slightly per a suggestion. However, the change is not at present in the Prep, here. The change was changing 'played by' to 'acted by'. Thanks, Matty.007 14:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Matty.007, the nomination template originally had "acted by" in the hook. The suggestion near the bottom was that "acted by" be changed to "played by". I thought this was a good suggestion, and made it when I promoted it to prep. The hook is currently in Queue 3, and it still says "played by", which is the better choice. I don't understand what the problem is. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, should have got my facts straight. My mistake, thanks for promoting it. Matty.007 14:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I suspect that I committed a Troutable offense... Matty.007 14:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This joint DYK nomination suffers from the same problem as this rejected one in that the article Rossomyrmex (not mine) is largely copied from a free access source and probably has insufficient original content to qualify for DYK. Is it possible to change the DYK nomination at this stage to relate to the single article Polyergus rufescens, written by me, which does not suffer from the same problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwmhiraeth (talk • contribs) 06:26, 25 November 2013
Cwmhiraeth, you're the nominator; so far as I know, that means you can adjust the nomination as you wish. It only gets tricky because you had agreed to do a joint nomination ahead of time. The amount of text directly copied from the primary CC source (Ruano et al. 2013) is huge, and the fact that there is no proper attribution of the copying is disturbing. (I was the one who asked Nikkimaria to take a look at the other nom, given the concerns raised by Darkness Shines.)
I'm going to ask Crisco 1492 to chime in here on the best way forward; my gut feeling is to split them within the same nomination template. It's understandable that you wouldn't feel comfortable keeping them together, and wouldn't want your article to be delayed; this allows a hook for your article to go forward while the other waits on a hook proposal from Jonkerz, assuming J wants to pursue the nom further. (Jonkerz hasn't logged in since November 19, so it might be a while before any response would be made on the attribution and identification issues.) In any event, if you do make the change, please do it by striking sections, not by a complete edit to make the other article disappear. Since this was a jointly agreed nom, a visible trail should remain so that Jonkerz has a way forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we have historically kept them at the same nom page, though a new nom page would still work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. The simplest way forward seemed to be to make a new nomination for my article with an explanation of why it was made out of time, and to suggest a new hook for Jonkerz' article under the original nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello BlueMoonset. I am just letting you know that I deleted Talk:Durga Shakti Nagpal/GA1, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra. I appreciate it, and sorry I didn't select the proper criterion. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, no harm done. This automated message isn't that useful though, as it doesn't really tell you what was changed. You requested it as A3, which is for stuff in article space with really nothing on the article, but I deleted it under G7, for when a user requested deletion for stuff they creaeted themselves. In this case, the creator blanked it, which may be taken as such a request, if it is clearly the intention to remove what's there. Take a look at
WP:CSD if you'd like another check for the available speedy deletion rationales. Martijn Hoekstra (talk
) 18:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
QPQs
Okay, I think I may have managed to submit quite a few nominations without QPQs. If you could give me a list, I'll get on to them.--Launchballer 21:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope i did this right, okay,
Can you please see if i properly cited my source on the page for Mary's Boy Child?
Thanks 21:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.203.49 (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
reliable. Basically, wikias, tumblrs, blogs, and all similar sources—ones that are written by fans with no editorial control or oversight—are not valid sources of information for Wikipedia articles. For that matter, Wikipedia articles themselves, since anyone can edit them or add information to them, are not reliable sources under Wikipedia. Unless you have a better (valid) source for the specific version of the song or which song with a particular title is being sung, the wikilink to an article about a specific version of the song—or indeed any wikilink at all—should not be added to the article. BlueMoonset (talk
) 14:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Phoebe Strole
I know that Glee Wikia's not an acceptable source for facts, someone gathered up info from Ancestry.com and screen capped this info. Thoughts?
discuss
) 15:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
primary source, so it would have to be used with great care. BlueMoonset (talk
) 05:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
well it's been two months since someone said it...
So yeah I noticed the last time someone mentioned an RfA on your talk page was on Sept 29. :-) I know you've turned down several offers before and I completely understand your reasons for doing so, but I just wanted to say that if you ever do run, I'd support you with no questions asked. You're one of the most conscientious and courteous people I've ever met on this site and I really appreciate your help at DYK when I came back after my extended wikibreak (two years can be a long time). I also wanted to say that because of your advice and example, my reviewing (and writing, meager though it may be) has improved a lot even in areas that aren't related to DYK, especially when it comes to sourcing requirements and copyvio checks. To be completely honest, your position now reminds me of Gatoclass back in 2008 (although if I remember correctly he wasn't necessarily opposed to being an admin then) and it's obviously been a good thing for the DYK project that his RfA was successful. And I think you becoming an admin would have a similarly positive effect. But yeah, anyways, just thought I'd say thanks for all the good work you do and I hope I will be able to support you in an RfA at some point. Thingg⊕⊗ 05:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I very much appreciate the words of support, but my feelings have not changed. In addition, I've been finding lately that I'm able to give less time to Wikipedia and DYK, and am doing less article writing than ever. Even ignoring the responsibilities and headaches involved, I don't seem to have the necessary time. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
First off, thank you for taking the time to actually remind me. Too often no ping is sent, and things are silently PRODed into oblivion or similar (like this). I do appreciate it.
But I don't know what to do here. I suck at DYK reviews. Its that simple. When I do them, people complain. When I don't, people complain.
Maury, don't let people get you down. Just find an article by a known, trusted editor to start with, and read it carefully. Compare it to the criteria. It should be much easier that way. No matter what, if you will continue submitting articles to DYK, you will have to do some reviews. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Those are precisely "the people" I'm talking about. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
And? What exactly started this? I have yet to see criticism directed at you for reviewing an article by a user of good standing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
DYKcheck to help. I hope you decide to try a couple of reviews. If not, though, then I think you ought to refrain from further DYK submissions, at least as long as there is a DYK requirement. BlueMoonset (talk
) 08:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, real life intrudes this weekend. I'm travelling next week, returning Saturday. May as well PROD the first one. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
, QPQ is a requirement; if it isn't done, then DYK approval should not be given. Period. No exceptions once the five freebies have been used up, which is the case with Launchballer. However, QPQ doesn't mean that a final approval or rejection has to have been done: if a full initial review has been completed, that is sufficient even if there's work the nominator needs to do. (Strictly speaking, the reviewer doesn't need to continue beyond that first full review.) The review needs to have covered everything, however: length, age, neutrality, hook, hook sourcing, copyvio check, picture (if included), etc.
You're right that pings on templates are ineffective. It's important to go to the nominator's talk page and post there, if they're someone that doesn't check their watchlist. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, BlueMoonset. I think I'm going to try suggesting a new QPQ is required as it looks as if someone else has suggested an alternative hook and may be picking up the review. I don't count simply adding "QPQ needed" as a review - there seems to be a lot of avoiding the spirit of QPQ generally at the moment, which isn't helping the approved hooks situation.
Quid pro quo actually means something: a full review, not a simple comment. I don't mind someone just saying that a QPQ is needed, because if that QPQ is never done a full review would effectively be wasted, but that doesn't count as a QPQ itself. If you see someone avoiding doing a true QPQ, feel free to call them on it. Finding one issue and calling it a review is not adequate. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I really would prefer it if you ping me when talking about me... I've reviewed this. I've done everything listed here and can't see anything, but I wanted to check with you before I approve it.--Launchballer 19:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Sagaciousphil, I really hope you don't decide to stay away from DYK: yours is exactly the kind of conscientious reviewing we're looking for, especially that when you come against an issue you aren't sure of, you check with someone who might know before giving potentially incorrect advice. I do such checking all the time, and frankly don't ping a nominator when asking a question about the rules as they relate to a review because it's not about the nominator, it's about the review and rules. I want to post something accurate to that review, and rather than potentially confuse someone, I'll either ask for advice on how the rules work or ask for someone else to stop by if it's beyond my experience. If someone wants to disapprove of me for knowing when I'm not sure, they're welcome to do so. BlueMoonset (talk
) 02:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Launchballer, I actually tend to stay away from court case articles, because there are usually issues regarding overuse of primary sources that I haven't quite wrapped my head around, at least so far as the extent they can properly be used. See Template:Did you know nominations/Patent misuse for an example of this issue being cited. (You might want to check with Crisco to see whether it's true with the article you're reviewing.) Also, the Copyvio check is not a sufficient check for close paraphrasing and copyvios; you need to spotcheck some of the actual sources, since Copyvio does a not-well-understood web check to see if things might have been cribbed from out there but it doesn't ever specifically look at things actually cited in the article. Testing a few sources using Duplication Detector is the way to go here, especially ones frequently cited or that cover a great deal of material. As for the actual review, you need to specify whether your comments refer to the original hook or to ALT1, and which of them are approved and which aren't. (If there's a problem with a hook, it's a good idea to strike it out for clarity using the strikeout tags.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Quotes
This is the now the third time I've been criticised for my use of quotes - I thought only quotes in excess of forty words didn't count, as they would need to be put in blockquotes?--Launchballer 13:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:QUOTEFARM and the sections below it for the guidelines and the thinking behind it. For DYK, since new articles are meant to be original prose, if you include a lot of quotes then it isn't your original writing but that of the people you're quoting. Generally, the Manual of Style mandates that quotes forty words or longer are put in blockquotes, and DYK doesn't count any blockquotes (or lists or tables) as prose. But DYK reviewers, if they feel the proportion of words being quoted is excessive and the amount of original prose well under 1500 characters therefore, are free to call for additional original non-quoted prose or recommend that more of the quoted material be paraphrased. BlueMoonset (talk
Good to know you're keeping an eye on it, SagaciousPhil, and will do the necessary reviewing when it's ready. As for Andrew Davidson, while his account is blocked, he isn't blocked as Colonel Warden, so he could still edit as necessary. Even if the Andrew Davidson account does come back, however, it looks like it won't be at DYK, since a requirement for it being unblocked seems to be that Andrew won't be able to venture into project spaces like DYK where the Colonel is active. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Should I put an icon on the nomination to hold it for a few days, until the query on the image is resolved (and also to give Andrew some time to work on it)? It's just it would be typical that someone would do a flyby, just look at the ALT hook, approve it and before any of us could say 'wait' it would be into prep, a queue and on the main page! Also, I had nominated an article for someone earlier today, expecting it to sit for a few days only to find it was approved within a couple of hours - it's meant for Christmas and we do still need to do some work on it but the creator is away for a few days. Can I move it into the Special Occasions area?
Your ? icon supersedes the AGF tick, so Lilian Bland should hold indefinitely in that stage. If it makes you feel better, you could always reiterate it on your next comment. As for the Christmas one that has been approved, since you really shouldn't be moving a hook you nominated to the special occasion holding area, I've just moved it myself; it will be safe there for the duration. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Everything present and correct? I was building preps and edit-conflicted with you a couple of times, but I swapped two of the prep areas round to accomodate the date request.--GilderienBerate|List of good deeds 23:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Gilderien, it looks like it's good now. Your new prep 1 is now set to be promoted next, and then prep 2 with the Mann hook hits the main page in the morning, US time, on the 14th. Thanks for filling those two sets, and sorry for the conflicts. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the article, James Caudy? I've never seen 53 citations cited to one page in a book (footnote 1). Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Yoninah, I think this is more a case of citing more than is strictly needed—making sure every little fact has its own inline reference—rather than a larger problem. If you put "Martha Hiett" (wife of Caudy's son) into the search box on the book that comes up, you can see a little fragment of the page; it's clearly fact-dense, and covers info in eight of those source citations, which could have been done with two (one right after the colon, none in the list, and one after the last sentence). Unfortunately, we can't see whole pages, though James Caudy (searching on his name) is the subject of chapter 60 on page 143, which argues for very short chapters of a page or two. If I were writing the article, I'd let a single inline source cover multiple sentences wherever possible. I'm not so well versed on whether this is so far the other way that it runs afoul of other Wikipedia standards of readability; someone else could probably help you there. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Enuejel, I'm so sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I've just inserted the link you found; I think a long-established auction house is probably a reliable enough secondary source for a fact like this. However, the article still needs inline source citations for the Early life section, the second paragraph in the Career section, and for the Selected works section, if it is to qualify for DYK. Are you planning to supply this citations soon? If not, I don't think the article can be approved; the sourcing is not currently up to DYK standards. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK advice
Would you mind giving me a bit of advice on DYK reviews? I'm not quite sure when to use the two different templates and . The reviewing guide says that the first one is where an issue needs to be addressed and the second is where eligibility needs some extra work - what would the difference be between those two? Thank you for any help you can give me. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not the difference, Launchballer. Bcp67, it's a matter of degree. If there are one or two small things preventing approval, such as a missing QPQ, or a question that needs to be answered, then is appropriate. (This could also be used for an uninteresting hook.) The is used when there are more extensive or serious issues remaining such as close paraphrasing, neutrality or BLP issues, an unsourced hook, poor prose or stuctural problems, or a number of general issues to be worked. If there are issues that seem to be intractable or extremely serious—even if they might be solvable—the symbol can be used instead of to show that the problems are extremely serious, though it's more commonly used for issues that can't be solved, like a nomination that was submitted too late, needs to be 5x expanded but wasn't close and would needs tens of thousands of new characters, or has extensive copyvios. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice - that's really helpful for me. --Bcp67 (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
And me. Thanks, Matty.007 17:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
You're both welcome. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
QPQ over at DYK
Would you mind looking at the bottom-of-the-page DYK thread I posted regarding a drive-by QPQ. I don't know the QPQ editor involved. But I think it should be handled. I'm just really tired of all this, and I'm afraid I don't feel very diplomatic right now. Perhaps I'm reading arrogance into the QPQ drive-by, but I find it annoying, after all that QPQ thread we just went through. Would you mind? — Maile (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand, since sometimes I don't feel very diplomatic myself. From what I can tell, the editor last participated in DYK either before or very early in the QPQ era (the most recent DYK was in 2011), so I posted that the QPQ was not adequate and another needed to be done. As far as I'm concerned, an initial review of "Good to go" is never adequate as a QPQ, but I'm absolutely unwilling to accept it from a novice reviewer who probably doesn't know what that really means. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
One thing for sure, all those editors on the talk page are correct in that the process needs to be improved. But such type of discussions don't always end productively in DYK, so we'll just hobble along. Thanks for doing this. — Maile (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK review
Hi, is there something against reviews which do not explicitly say anything about the article, such as this or this, where all that is said is a general statement? Thanks, Matty.007 17:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, here it is, it doesn't "indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed". Thanks, Matty.007 17:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
WT:DYK
if we spot issues with queued hooks.
Incidentally, one thing to watch for when you're building sets is both variety and not having similar hooks next to each other. For example, no more than half of the hooks in a set should be bios, and no more than half should be U.S.-based hooks. Other countries and subjects should be even less frequent: no more than one (or maybe two) from another country, or about another topic, like an old building, a fossil, or about sports. Also, the final hook should be "quirky" if at all possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the info. I re-read the instructions after the first prep, and saw that, so will try and stick closer to that in future. Thanks for the help, Matty.007 08:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Bristol Parkway railway station
I never fucking agreed to do a review. All I fucking did was pass on a consider view of the status of the article. I had been heavily edited for almost a month and User:Mattbuck suddenly expects the whole of Wikipedia to gather round and praise him. Get FUCKING REAL! Honestly, all you people who come on Wikipedia in order to get people to polish your ego's need to start to get FUCKING LIFE. So let me make this real clear to you ... I don't give a flying FUCK about the GA review for Bristol Parkway railway station. - 01:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank (talk • contribs)
What a strange attitude. I left this message on the same matter, which also didn't go down too well. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Bhtpbank, you shouldn't have opened a GA review page if you hadn't intended to do a complete review. You're welcome to give opinions on reviews once they've been opened, but not start them in that way. Perhaps you'd do best to stay away from GAN, since you're so contemptuous of it. Redrose64, I've closed the review, and the GAN is back in the nomination pool. With luck, it will get picked up before the December review drive ends. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK Noms
I created that page so as to avoid confusion which may arise. I will not use it further in any nom. Soham (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Soham. I don't know why it broke the nomination template, but it did. In future, just link to the QPQ template's page. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey I have a question about DYKStat. One of my DYK Article,
Wikipedia:DYKSTATS/Archive_2013#October_2013. Do the nominators have to add their articles themselves or there are set of editors who do this? Soham (talk
The DYKStat page is a manual creation. There isn't an official group of editors who do it; some people monitor their own articles and add them, and some people check articles in general and add those that meet the criteria. It isn't in any way comprehensive, so far as I know. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
So its up to the contributors for their respective articles I guess. Thanks for clarifying. Soham (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
(
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000." It has changed from how I remember it. Perhaps the automatic process was intended but never implemented - or it's broken? --Redrose64 (talk
) 23:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Holiday Cheer
Holiday Cheer
Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS
Some help/advice (again) please
Hi BlueMoonset, I hope you don't mind but you are my appointed go to person for general DYK queries (Crisco gets landed with all the image questions ). Is there an easy way of going through the huge nominations page that I haven't managed to find yet? I often find ploughing through >200 nominations to check for something to review takes longer than doing the reviews! It must also be a nightmare for those trying to build prep sets - is there a way of identifying approved nominations? I've tried using the 'find' facility to search for various permutations but it doesn't help. If Shubinator is presently looking at the bots etc would it help, or indeed be possible, if the various {{subst:DYKtick}} etc templates had a brief wording incorporated (maybe something like "icon plus Eligibility verified", "icon plus Eligibility query" or "icon plus Eligibility fail" (I've tried to think of wording not generally used to make them easy to search for). Or could approved nominations be moved into a separate category page, preferably automatically? Maybe I'm just being lazy - or dim!!
Sagaciousphil, I seem to use the same people as go to for help. In the queues and preps, there is a table saying how many hooks there are for each day, and how many approved. Thanks, Matty.007
SagaciousPhil, next time, please hold off giving final approval before checking back. Frequently, when a close paraphrasing issue is as blatant as this one is, I don't do an exhaustive check of everything else, and there may be surprises in store. Did you do any other paraphrase checking? And, Matty.007, you might have considered holding off promoting the hook given what SagaciousPhil said in his approval comment. If an approval tick is accompanied by doubtful or hesitant comments, that's a good reason not to promote, unless you've done your own checks and feel that the article meets approval standards in the area questioned.
Although the article has been promoted, it's a long way from the main page, so I'm going to check with Nikkimaria, who's my go-to person for close paraphrasing, like Crisco is mine for general issues (much as I am for SagaciousPhil). So we'll see what she finds.
Finally, on the original issue of finding hooks to review, it's a bit of a pain to look for ones that need reviewing, which is why I put my occasional lists of three dozen or so older nominations that need reviewing. Each is a direct link to a template needing review, so it's easy enough to start on
WT:DYK and click directly to individual templates. I'm working on a new list, so there should be plenty to choose from in a little while. BlueMoonset (talk
) 00:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the heads up. Matty.007 15:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Holiday Cheer
Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger
Please explain to me what sense there is in reviewers like me having to plough through dozens of articles looking for the Christmas related noms when they could be added straight to the Christmas section where they can be immediately located? Gatoclass (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Because, as a general rule, people don't look in special occasions for nominations to review. I recommend that you set up a "here's what needs reviewing right now" section in
Why do you want people to have to work so much harder than they have to? I spent roughly 45 minutes combing through the nom page today looking for Christmas noms, if they'd gone straight to the Christmas section at the outset, I wouldn't have had to do that. You can direct people to the special occasion holding areas from WT:DYK just as easily as you can to the nom page, with the difference that they will be able to find the relevant noms immediately. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
You're acting like I'm the one who set up this system: special occasions have been this way since I first came to DYK, so people are naturally going to load their nominations to the normal section. And I suspect it's set up that way because people generally do not go to the special occasion holding area looking for hooks to review because they know that hooks there are supposed to have been reviewed. (My experience is that nominations mistakenly put there languish until they're moved to the regular section.) The last minute is hardly an ideal time to change how DYK works. It really isn't that hard for Christmas, or any other special occasion: once you've done the initial patrol, reviewing the latest current nominations takes a minute or two at most. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
If an "awaiting review" section were set up at the top of the special occasions section with just a link to the nom page, it might make things easier. Not everyone would use it, but regulars would. Thanks both for all your work throughout the year. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for dealing with the Christmas hook that seemed so easy. We have now a image in the article showing that it was published this way. I don't feel strongly about orthography, but about the composer's choice who dedicated it to his father ;) - Everybody who thinks that is a error can look at the image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas Tito☸Dutta 17:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
