Template talk:Did you know/Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences

Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences[edit]

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 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 Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle}

... that the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences operates JAGO (pictured), the only manned research submersible in Germany?

Created by Epipelagic (talk). Self nom at 23:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed: Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012 [1] --Epipelagic (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:
Hook

Length, format, content rules: rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source:
Interest: Hook is not interesting enough. Hooks that are merely definitions (e.g., "Did you know that X is a Y?") are almost never suitable for the main page. Is there anything interesting that can be added? rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image suitability, if applicable: n/a

Article

Length: User:Dr pda/prosesize.js gives only about 1100 characters, but doesn't count the bullet points. Since there is a lot of content there, this meets the length requirement.
Vintage: rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing (V, RS, BLP): I don't see any independent sources to establish notability. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality:
Plagiarism/close paraphrasing:

Comments/discussion: All but two references are from the institute's own website, and the other two references are from the website of an aquarium the institute operates. The article needs third-party, independent sources (mainly to establish notability, but also just because that's the only way to be sure there's good, reliable information in the article). I won't go as far as to challenge notability on the article itself yet, because I don't know what the notability standards and guidelines are for research institutes (that is to say, I don't know what sorts of references would be expected to demonstrate that a research institute is notable on Wikipedia), but in any case the article as it is is not suitable for DYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the hook. Actually, the article does cite a third party source [2] --Epipelagic (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks like basically a directory entry; I'm not sure how far it goes towards establishing notability. In any case, one independent source out of 20 is not enough; the number of independent sources needs to be increased and the number of non-independent sources needs to be reduced. rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put the icon up in the review template before; just adding one down here to make it clear that I consider this nomination rejected. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is working on improving referencing and I am willing to re-evaluate this nom. I do believe it can be rescued. Materialscientist (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was already five days old when nominated and it's only getting older. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not matter, what matters is when the review was completed, which is less than allotted 7 days. The nominator has asked to reconsider and is trying to address the problem. I believe we must cherish all attempts to collaborate with the DYK reviewer and improve the article as a result of the review. This way we improve and use the reviewer time more efficiently. Materialscientist (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be thoroughly sourced now. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]