Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Beckwith

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Bob Beckwith

Created by Moogwrench (talk). Self nom at 06:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hook review
Format Citation Neutrality Interest
☑Y Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me ☑Y Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me ☑Y Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me ☑Y Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me


Article review
Length Newness Adequate
citations
Formatted
citations
Reliable
sources
Neutrality Plagiarism
☑Y Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me ☑Y Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me ☑Y Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me ☑Y Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me ☑Y Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me ☑Y Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me ☑Y Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me


  • All good but the density of citations. The article uses multiple sources, but references are only at the end of a para, thus making it impossible to determine which references back the preceding sentences. For example, the hook sentence has no reference; there are only references few sentences down when the para ends (three of them). The referencing density needs to be improved, so it is clear which source(s) back(s) which sentence. PS. One of the images in this article is free and relatively well known, and it could be added to the hook. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, as soon as I can, I will review the sentences and see which can be supported by all the references and which need to be separated and cited by just one of them. In most of the sources, identical information is present, with the quotes and a few minor details being the exception. Thanks for your help. Moogwrench (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • In many cases it is fine to have multiple refs for one sentence, as long as we can be sure that that sentence has, in fact, some references :) On Wiki, where text is often moved by others, added, and so on, we need this level of reference density to avoid confusion and ensure proper attribution and verifiability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have gone through the references one last time, moved a few around a tiny bit, and I am now almost 100% sure that every bit of text preceding a/some citation(s) is directly sourced to the citation(s) that follows it--even with the significant overlap in information among the sources. (Is it necessary to source every sentence individually or can a group of sentences be sourced with the citation(s) that follow(s) them?). The hook is adequately sourced by the Yahoo News source in the article (is there any place I should put the hook reference?). Also here is an alt hook with picture:
President George W. Bush speaking at Ground Zero with Bob Beckwith beside him.
  • Now is much better, alt hook as well. I'd however add the cites to each sentences, not only groups; what happens if somebody goes in the article and adds a sentence in the middle of them, with or without references? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


Hook review for alt1
Format Citation Neutrality Interest
☑Y Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me ☑Y Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me ☑Y Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me ☑Y Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me