Template:Did you know nominations/National Suicide Prevention Week
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. 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: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Length
National Suicide Prevention Week[edit]
- ... that the American Association of Suicidology, sponsors of the United States' National Suicide Prevention Week, estimates there are over 4.6 million survivors of suicide attempts in the nation?
Created/expanded by Insomesia (talk). Self nom at 18:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Still needs a lot of style work. For example, this is specific to the United States, but the country isn't mentioned until the end of the second paragraph and then it is abbreviated as "U.S."; the second sentence begins with "they" but it isn't clear to whom this refers; the article gives statistics such as "suicide is the 11th leading cause of death" without saying whether that is a U.S. ranking or a global ranking; etc. Really should get a good going-over before it is displayed prominently as a DYK. - Jmabel | Talk 03:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Great eye, I usually am re-reading and catching that stuff, but it should be clear all information is US specific. I guess in an effort to avoid repeating it I failed to mention it enough. I've taken another pass at it to address these issues, if you don't mind could you see if these have been amended so they are clear? Thank you for your time on this! Insomesia (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I just made a copyediting pass. I'm neutral on this one, and someone else ought to make the call. My biggest remaining negative is that I'm not sure I see a strong connection between the content of the section Subgroups and the ostensible subject of the article. It seems more to belong in the (so far rather anemic) Suicide in the United States than in the present article. Don't misunderstand me: it's good content, I'm just not sure how cohesive this is as an article on its ostensible subject. - Jmabel | Talk 23:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I just followed what sourcing I had to the main subject. There is a lot of overlapping content in the suicide article so I aimed to just get the one I was doing as correct and sourced as possible. I could see repeating the same information on Suicide in the United States and let the main editors working on that article trim away what's not needed. I'll look at that now. Insomesia (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- The change someone recently made removing "suicide in the United States" from the external links and relinking on the phrase "there are over 4.6 million survivors of attempted suicide in the United States" at least borders on an Easter egg link. "Attempted suicide" is much more tightly grammatically bound in this phrase than "suicide in the United States". I'd really suggest reverting that, and restoring the more relevant link to attempted suicide. - Jmabel | Talk 23:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I just followed what sourcing I had to the main subject. There is a lot of overlapping content in the suicide article so I aimed to just get the one I was doing as correct and sourced as possible. I could see repeating the same information on Suicide in the United States and let the main editors working on that article trim away what's not needed. I'll look at that now. Insomesia (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I just made a copyediting pass. I'm neutral on this one, and someone else ought to make the call. My biggest remaining negative is that I'm not sure I see a strong connection between the content of the section Subgroups and the ostensible subject of the article. It seems more to belong in the (so far rather anemic) Suicide in the United States than in the present article. Don't misunderstand me: it's good content, I'm just not sure how cohesive this is as an article on its ostensible subject. - Jmabel | Talk 23:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Great eye, I usually am re-reading and catching that stuff, but it should be clear all information is US specific. I guess in an effort to avoid repeating it I failed to mention it enough. I've taken another pass at it to address these issues, if you don't mind could you see if these have been amended so they are clear? Thank you for your time on this! Insomesia (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Good hook; good article; good-to-go i think BUT... i just had a nice rythm going, copyediting the article, but the inline citations tied me up, then suddenly something came up personally so unfortunately i had to stop for now. really sorry, i'll have another go at it soon as possible; made edits halfway thru the article til stopping but i know it needs a little more. one note : the date of "September 10" as noted: is it annually on the 10th or just this year(2012)? i'll be back! Penwatchdog (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hey Insomnia i'm sorry i haven't had the time to get back to tighten-up the article... even now, i'll skim over it but i don't have the time i'd like; have a house-full of life to relocate this week... i'll check back soon as i can and make it better than brittania! maybe someone'll beat me to it? talk to ya soon! Penwatchdog (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- me agin; just made a quick edit. that'll be all i can help with until next week but i'll come again then! There's a very important editorial question i'd like to pose, though: i'm wondering if it's proper for wikipedia to be listing actual dates of THIS years NSPW event; makes it seem more like an event preview than an encyclopedic entry... may it be enough that it's already described as "occurring during the week of Sept. 10th, or is this an exception?" Penwatchdog (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just came back and spent some time while i could, to continue where i left off with prior copy editing. i made some layout/formatting changes all for factual clarity but, barring any problems with the references or otherwise, i give this my ready-steady-freddy CHECK. sorry, more tired than you right now.Penwatchdog (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I looked at the article from the standpoint of DYK acceptability. The article is new enough (nominated the same day it was created) and long enough, as well as thoroughly footnoted, but I find that only the lead section of the article and the section about "Themes" are actually about National Suicide Prevention Week. The rest of the article is about suicide in the United States and other suicide prevention efforts. Additionally, only a few of the cited sources are directly relevant to Suicide Prevention Week. Some background is appropriate, but when the content that is not directly related to the article topic is disregarded, all that is left is a stub. Furthermore, the proposed hook is about suicide in the United States, and uses the name of the article only in passing.
- Also, probably as a result of all of the copyediting that has occurred, some of the footnotes are no longer associated with the article content they were originally supposed to support -- and the sources of the article content are no longer discernible.
- I've looked for other information (particularly third-party sources) about this Week that might be added to the article, but I don't find much. It's not on this list of National Health Observances in 2012. SAMHSA is sponsoring a "National Prevention Week" instead.[1] There are some press releases (such as this one) and news stories (such as this one), mostly based on press releases, describing activities included in past local observances, but I don't see much encyclopedic content there.
- Bottom line: Suicide and its prevention are important topics, but I don't see enough of an article here to feature at DYK. --Orlady (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
