Template:Did you know nominations/Eleanor Elkins Widener: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
done |
re hook |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
::Yeah, I forgot that DYK likes to project the illusion that 5-day-old articles aren't works in progress. Therefore, instead of leaving in minor, uncontroversial points -- tagged as {{citation needed}} in the hope that someone will be inspired to find the cite -- I'll just take that material out so that when the article appears on the main page, interesting facts will be missing but people will ''ooh'' and ''ahh'' at how tag-free the article is, thus getting a completely distorted view of the typical timeline of article development. In other cases I'll add cites to low-quality, barely-reliable sources -- again giving the appearance that the article is "done" even though more work is really needed. I'll also remove the {{clarify}} tags, thus pretending that material that probably could be clarified is really as good as it could be; again, no one will notice and readers will be amazed at how apparently perfect the article presents itself to be, even though it's not, actually. These are the beneficial side-effects of DYK's 5-day/0-tag guidelines. [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 23:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
::Yeah, I forgot that DYK likes to project the illusion that 5-day-old articles aren't works in progress. Therefore, instead of leaving in minor, uncontroversial points -- tagged as {{citation needed}} in the hope that someone will be inspired to find the cite -- I'll just take that material out so that when the article appears on the main page, interesting facts will be missing but people will ''ooh'' and ''ahh'' at how tag-free the article is, thus getting a completely distorted view of the typical timeline of article development. In other cases I'll add cites to low-quality, barely-reliable sources -- again giving the appearance that the article is "done" even though more work is really needed. I'll also remove the {{clarify}} tags, thus pretending that material that probably could be clarified is really as good as it could be; again, no one will notice and readers will be amazed at how apparently perfect the article presents itself to be, even though it's not, actually. These are the beneficial side-effects of DYK's 5-day/0-tag guidelines. [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 23:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
::OK, take a look now, please. [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 02:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC) |
::OK, take a look now, please. [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 02:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
::Despite my earlier dyspepsia (though I don't withdraw the sentiment) I appreciate the trouble taken in doing the review. However, I'd like to hear if others share the same concerns about the hook -- I don't see it. [[User:EEng|EEng]] ([[User talk:EEng|talk]]) 03:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
||
Revision as of 03:18, 26 April 2014
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Eleanor Elkins Widener
- ... that after rowing a Titanic lifeboat and honoring her drowned son with a Harvard library, Eleanor Elkins Widener waited on a yacht (pictured) while her second husband fought "scantily-clad, ferocious cannibals"?
Created by EEng (talk), Hertz1888 (talk). Nominated by EEng (talk) at 02:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
New enough, long enough. No close paraphrasing or copyvios found. 3 DYKs done, so no QPQ needed. However, there are five outstanding tags in the text that need addressing. Some of the tagging is a bit pedantic, but five is probably too many to be left in for a DYK. The hook does cram a lot in! She should be mentioned sooner in the hook, and on first reading (which is all most users will do), it perhaps sounds as if she was on a yacht with her second husband, while her first husband and son were drowning. Edwardx (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I forgot that DYK likes to project the illusion that 5-day-old articles aren't works in progress. Therefore, instead of leaving in minor, uncontroversial points -- tagged as [citation needed] in the hope that someone will be inspired to find the cite -- I'll just take that material out so that when the article appears on the main page, interesting facts will be missing but people will ooh and ahh at how tag-free the article is, thus getting a completely distorted view of the typical timeline of article development. In other cases I'll add cites to low-quality, barely-reliable sources -- again giving the appearance that the article is "done" even though more work is really needed. I'll also remove the [clarification needed] tags, thus pretending that material that probably could be clarified is really as good as it could be; again, no one will notice and readers will be amazed at how apparently perfect the article presents itself to be, even though it's not, actually. These are the beneficial side-effects of DYK's 5-day/0-tag guidelines. EEng (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, take a look now, please. EEng (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Despite my earlier dyspepsia (though I don't withdraw the sentiment) I appreciate the trouble taken in doing the review. However, I'd like to hear if others share the same concerns about the hook -- I don't see it. EEng (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)