Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Colonel Johnson

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following 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 ツStacey (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Robert Gibbon Johnson

[edit]
(
)
Col. Robert G. Johnson
Col. Robert G. Johnson
  • ... that Colonel Johnson (pictured) was imprisoned by the British when seven years old but became famous for eating tomatoes?
  • Comment: Lots more to do still but getting this nominated while it's fresh
  • Reviewed: Guy ropes

Created by Andrew Davidson (talk). Self-nominated at 22:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC).

  • Please first write a decent article and then ask us to nominate it. Nothing has been done on it since the nomination. He is mainly notable for one thing, the false story about the tomato. Nothing is said about this in the article, even though it is mentioned in the lead and in the hook. The article also totally omits his political career. Basically, posting this on the main page would be a disservice to our readers. Fram (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As indicated in the comments, I am already well aware that there's more to do here and I intend to do this once I've dealt with some other, more pressing, articles such as Althea McNish. But, in any case, DYK is explicitly open to incomplete work per WP:DYK: "DYK is not: A smaller-scale version of either featured content or Good Articles, though selected Good Articles do appear in the DYK box. Articles must meet the basic criteria set out on this page but do not have to be of very high quality. It is fine for articles to be incomplete (though not unfinished), to have red links, to be capable of being expanded or improved further, and so on." So, please leave this pending for now and I'll request another review when I've made another round of editing, which will add the specific content mentioned by Fram. I'd like this article to look good when it reaches the main page too and so our objectives are aligned. Andrew D. (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, no, our objectives aren't aligned. Your objective is to a) have this article as a DYK and b) have it finished to a basic acceptable state at some date in the future. My objective is to have a) articles with a basic acceptable state, and b) only if they then also meet DYK standards, to have them as a DYK. The priority is the article, not the DYK, and you seem to have completely reversed that, leaving an article woefully incomplete for weeks (or longer) in the mainspace without any problem, as long as it meets the newness and length criteria of DYK so you can nominate it. Using Althea McNish(your only edit: [1]) as an excuse is pretty weak. I do notice the first comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Althea McNish, which you co-created: "Em, you two seem to be considerably experienced editors, so you should have known better than to submit something like this." I'm not asking for a GA, far from it, but a DYK article, certainly by well-estalished editors with sufficient DYK credits already, should meet the basic requirements of what an article should be like, not just the very minimal literal DYK requirements. An article that has facts in the lead which aren't explained further in the body is one of the most basic fails. An article which goes on at length about the background, but skips the essentials completely, is even worse. If you don't have enough time to finish these articles before submitting them (to the mainspace and to DYK), use your sandbox or the Draft namespace instead. Fram (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not unusual for articles to be reviewed more than once. When I do a QPQ, I usually go to the section Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Old_nominations_needing_DYK_reviewers to find a topic. These old ones, by their nature, often have a complex history – that's why they tend to get passed over. I'm not afraid to tackle these tough nuts and, in this case, didn't just review the article but took it to AFD where the page was turned into a redirect. That was a significant amount of effort – more onerous than many other QPQs that I've done. Andrew D. (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Andrew Davidson, apart from from you, the nominator and the reviewer, seven others contributed to that discussion (I was one of them). Do you think that all of them can claim it as a QPQ? I don't. I suggest you revise your QPQ for this nomination. Oh, and I don't plan to claim this comment as a review, either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • My position remains that this was a valid QPQ. I went looking for something to review and found that topic on a list specifically entitled "Old_nominations_needing_DYK_reviewers". If one picks an open entry from that list and does work culminating in a DYK decision like {{DYKno}} then this is a review. If one got no credit for such work then the old nominations with complex history and issues would be neglected. Anyway, my first priority is to expand the article which I hope to do at the weekend. Before I spend any time on another messy QPQ like the guy ropes case, I'd want a second opinion or some evidence that this is necessary. Andrew D. (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Generally, if a "review again" icon is placed on an article, unless it is a request to give a final check to an ALT hook, the reviewer is being asked to review from scratch and credit should be given. This may mean that more than one person can be given QPQ credit for reviewing a particular nomination, as happened here. In this case, a new assessment was requested, and Andrew D.'s review noted a fundamental flaw in the article itself, which was affirmed over the course of the AfD, after which point the article was removed and replaced with a redirect to a completely different topic. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Er, BlueMoonset, two people noted problems with that article, Opabinia regalis and I. All Andrew D. did in his "review" was summarise what had already been said. But what the hell, objection withdrawn. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Fram just closed this but this seems improper as an admin action because they are WP:INVOLVED. Their complaint was that nothing had been done but this has been due to my activity on other articles such as Merikins, which is scheduled for April 1, tomorrow and Peter Williams (dance critic), which is an older nomination. I also have other commitments in my personal life and have been quite unwell lately, which hasn't helped. I don't agree with all that is said above but, to show willing:
  1. I have done another QPQ review at Kamal Foroughi. BlueMoonset said that another QPQ wasn't needed here but I am willing for this other one to be counted too so that we no longer have to argue about this issue.
  2. I will today do some work to expand Colonel Johnson even more, even though this is not strictly necessary by DYK rules.

So, please give me another 10 hours and then take another look. Andrew D. (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I've expanded the article this weekend and it's reasonably comprehensive now. I'll probably keep tweaking it for a while but the main expansion is done and so it's ready for another review, please. Andrew D. (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I am reviewing this article for DYK criteria.
@Andrew Davidson: A couple of things I see at first glance that I would like to clear up. If these were corrected or cleared up, then the rest looks pretty good.
1) Was Did you know nominations/Guy ropes reviewed by user:Andrew Davidson? It's not clear to me on this. Can you help by pointing it out that this is a bonefide QPQ that you did -OR- provide another QPQ. Ahhhh = I now see Template:Did you know nominations/Kamal Foroughi done as a QPQ and is the one provided for this nomination.
2) Under Further reading, I don't believe these were meant as a "citation" and that template should not have been used here as then it shows harv errors. Can this be fixed?
3) A minor fix would be to put multiple inline references in numerical order.
--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
@Doug Coldwell: Thanks for picking this up. You must be brave to tackle the oldest nomination but I trust you won't find it difficult. Re the points raised:
  1. As you have observed, I did a second QPQ so that this issue would not be an obstacle.
  2. I'm not seeing the harv errors but, to eliminate any potential problem, have added "|ref=none" to those two sources, so that anchors are not generated by default.
  3. I have reordered the citations so that they are always in ascending order and agree that this looks better.
Andrew D. (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • DYK checklist template
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Passes DYK checklist. Submitted in time. Article is 8,000 characters + = over 5 times as needed of 1500 minimum. No copyvio detected using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. The minor issues raised are cleared up. Good To Go. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Colonel_Johnson&oldid=716173719"