Template:Did you know nominations/Bryan & Baxter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Bryan & Baxter[edit]

  • ... that Bryan & Baxter are Paranormal Claims Investigators, and how that differs from Paranormal Investigators?

Created/expanded by Rjmail (talk). Self nom at 20:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The hook is grammatically incorrect and makes no sense as is. (Correction should be done as an Alt1) In essence, your hook is saying this:
Did you know that Bryan & Baxter are paranormal claims investigators, and
Did you know and how that differs from paranormal investigations
  • No need to capitalize words that are not proper nouns and not capitalized within the article.
  • I just browsed this article, and you have my interest in the subject matter. I believe it's splitting hairs to say what they do is not a paranormal investigation. Investigating a claim in and of itself is investigating whether or not the paranormal exists. They debunk paranormal claims, but that requires they must investigate whether or not the paranormal was in evidence. Therefore, they investigated the paranormal, case by case. Otherwise, they would just be investigating motives and intent. A second opinion from a different DYK reviewer would be good on this issue.
Maile66 (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, and I look forward to more input here. Yeah, I was trying to say that investigating a paranormal claim is different than investigating the paranormal, since the latter tends to assume the paranormal exists (otherwise how could it be investigated), but the former focuses on the claims, and not the ghosts, so to speak. Rjmail (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you have something good here, and it's different than what DYK usually gets. So, let's see what kind of input you get from other reviewers. Maile66 (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • While waiting for other reviewers, here's an attempt to address your concerns as much as I can. Not sure if I made it any better though. I'm also not sure what you meant as an Alt1 change?
  • Alt!... that Bryan & Baxter are paranormal claims investigators that do not claim to investigate the paranormal, but instead investigate claims of the paranormal? Rjmail (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I meant instead of making the change in wording in the original hook, do exactly what you did, but stick "Alt1`" next to the alternative hook. I know what's missing (to me, anyway) in how this is being conveyed: "legitimacy of paranormal claims"...or credibility, or something like that. You're the editor who wrote the article and knows everything in your references. But here's another alternative hook to show what I mean:
  • Alt 2 ... that paranormal claims investigators Bryan & Baxter examine the legitimacy of paranormal claims made by others?
That may not be the exact wording it should be, and whatever it is, it has to be in the article itself. But that's what I think you mean - they investigate the legitimacy of claims made by others. Maile66 (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that may be right, and maybe what I am trying to say is overly subtle, that the standard group goes in to find a pre-labeled phenomenon (ghost, bigfoot, alien, etc), but this one keeps their eye on the claims that led up to labeling of the phenomenon. If you think yours says that more clearly that I (and what you say is accurate given all their cites I've read), I am happy to go with that, and I can tweak the article. Boy, this is trickier than I thought - but thanks for the help! Rjmail (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want to go with Alt2 as the hook, I can do the review. But please first make sure the wording is in the article with an online reference. I was careful not to say they "challenge" such claims, because some of the referencing you have quotes them as saying they start out with an open mind on each claim. You're not alone in this experience - I just went through something similar with a nomination of my own creation. A second set of eyes can be a good thing. .Maile66 (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Alt 3 ... that paranormal claims investigators Bryan & Baxter do not investigate the paranormal, but rather the legitimacy of the paranormal claims made by others?
Alt3 is great. Give me a few minutes. I'm running the Duplication Detector on the referencing. Maile66 (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
In the article where you have it worded to align with the hook, you need to have that wording in the source material. And it needs to be referenced at the end of the sentence. The reference you have at the end of that paragraph doesn't really say that. It's more of a Twitter-like blog on a podcast. Find a reference that fits the sentence. Maile66 (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • While I'm waiting for you, I'll list this:
  • QPQ not necessary
  • Article created on July 9, 2012 with 3,837 readable prose
  • NPOV
  • Duplication Detector run, no copyvio found
  • Every paragraph sourced

Maile66 (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again Maile66 - I reused an earlier references there now that I think, in total, gives the substance that justifies the hook as represented in the article text. Rjmail (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go with Alt 3. which is 154 characters. The hook is sourced with Reference #1, which does not employ the exact word "legitimacy", but describes in detail the very practice mentioned in the hook.

Maile66 (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)