Template:Did you know nominations/DNA digital data storage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination  The following is an archived discussion of DNA digital data storage's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination's (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the DYK WikiProject's (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

DNA digital data storage[edit]

Created by Steve Quinn (talk), Antony-22 (talk). Nominated by Antony-22 (talk) at 04:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg Interesting article, long enough, create date good. Citation style is confusing though. The inlines are all piled up at the end of the paragraphs, making it difficult to figure out what sentences are sourced to which ref. The inlines should be placed behind the sentences each supports. Also, there surely is an appropriate image on Commons to illustrate this with, I'll maybe help with that as well. The Interior (Talk) 03:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • These are good suggestions for improving the article, but technically only the existence of references, and not their formatting, is part of the DYK criteria. Getting an image probably wouldn't be trivial, since someone would have to create a diagram from scratch based on the original papers. More generic images like pictures of DNA wouldn't really be all that evokative here. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 05:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll have to disagree. D2 of the supplementary rules doesn't trump Eligibility criteria, #4, which asks that articles specifically meet WP:V. It's my position that this reference style doesn't let me to verify which facts come from which sources. I've had trouble with this before, where an article I approved with unclear cites was found to have issues. If I'm going to sign off on this, I need to check not only the facts, but also for paraphrasing. I don't think it's an onerous request, but if you still disagree, you'll have to request another reviewer at WT:DYK. The Interior (Talk) 06:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, I made the suggested changes. But I'd like to point out that WP:V says nothing about the placement of references, meaning that this is a style issue outside the scope of DYK eligibility. And besides, you can still easily verify the facts using end-of-paragraph citations, you just have to click a couple more times. Nevertheless, hopefully these changes will suffice for you. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 03:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The original idea of placing citations where they were, at the end of paragraphs, is that the references supported the content in the paragraphs that were mostly small in this particular article. But since DYK is a special situation then I can see honoring that request. However, there was no large stretch of material that was without refs. I could see if the refs were all at the end of the article, then this request would seem to be more applicable. The citations were frequent enough that material could easily be correlated with the refs. But, I don't know if it would be easier to have a back and forth discussion showing how the refs correlate, or simply moving the in-line citations. I think the latter was the easier task.
I am not sure about an image either, nor how easy it would be to make one. As Antony pointed out, the available images don't really reflect what is in the article. He already removed one image that did not really apply. However, from my prior experience DYK likes to have images, so I guess we can see what we can come up with. I can download a non-free image under "WP:Fair Use". In the meantime maybe someone can make a free image, or something like that. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Date, length good. Hook is properly referenced. Spot checks for paraphrasing come up clean. The image isn't necessary, just a suggestion. Thank you for reformatting the references - it made my job much easier. I'll continue to disagree about whether the old style met WP:V, the issue is text–source integrity. If you would like to discuss this further, feel free to drop by my talk page. Good work on the article, really interesting subject matter (piqued my interest as I'm reading Iain M. Banks novels, which incorporate this idea). The Interior (Talk) 00:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The text–source integrity section is not part of WP:V, it's part of WP:CITE, a content guideline. Also, that section is actually fairly ambiguous about whether to bundle references, but merely states the pros and cons of each approach. But I do think there is a need for more clarity in the DYK rules, so I might bring this up at WT:DYK merely for advisory reasons after I get back from traveling later this week. Thanks for being understanding despite the disagreement. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 04:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)