Template:Did you know nominations/Complete & Unbelievable: The Otis Redding Dictionary of Soul

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  MehrajMir  (Talk) 06:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Complete & Unbelievable: The Otis Redding Dictionary of Soul[edit]

Created/expanded by GreatOrangePumpkin (talk). Self nom at 13:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol confirmed.svg QPQ done. New enough and long enough. Images have acceptable copyrights and/or fair use rationale. Article is neutral enough. Hook is properly formatted. Hook fact appears in the article.
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Offline sources support article and were not plagiarised in writing.
  • Symbol question.svg Article not fully supported by inline citations. Lead is not written in summary style, with facts presented in it that are not found cited elsewhere in the article. Hooked fact is not supported by sources in the article. --LauraHale (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg Improving sources and lead. Once done, comment here and on my talk page so I can finish the review. --LauraHale (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I am not sure why there need to be citatitions that it was mixed in the song Otis, as it is actually self-evident. The information for the other paragraph is found in the tracklist section, which on the other side is found in the liner notes. I am also not sure what is not supported in the lead. And citing the hook is nonsense as King & Queen was clearly a duet album. Regards.--GoPTCN 08:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
GOP, if you aren't willing to abide by the DYK rules, then your nominations will fail. It's as simple as that.
  • Rule: each paragraph must contain at least one inline citation. Your Side 2 paragraph doesn't. Laura used a "fact" tag here, which you removed, but a "citation needed" tag would have been as much in order, and I've added it to the article. Please don't point me to the tracklist section, as that isn't cited either, and it should be as well. I've added a tag there, and also to the personnel section: as always with Wikipedia, it isn't enough to know something is true, you have to cite reliable sources.
  • Rule: the hook fact must have an inline citation. In this case, that's "last solo studio album". I don't care how obvious you think it is that King & Queen is a duet album, or that the live album is a live album: you need to have an independent secondary source citation that says it's Redding's last solo studio album to satisfy DYK rules. I've just discovered that you actually have such a source used elsewhere in the article, the BBC review by Easlea, so I've added the fact into the body of the article at the end of the Background section, and cited it with that source. If I hadn't done so, you would have had to.
  • Point: "self-evident" goes back to the point that you need to cite sources in this article, even if they are already cited in another article that covers the matter in more depth. Each article is independent—using other articles as sources is not allowed on Wikipedia, so relying by indirection on their sources is also inappropriate.
Once you've supplied the necessary citations, which are indicated in the article, this will be ready for further review. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Disagree with every comment. I removed the cn tag as the credits are clearly mentioned in the track listing section, which is cited to Allmusic. Also give me a policy which states that every paragraph should be cited. Regards.--GoPTCN 08:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
At the time, the Track listing credits were not referenced to Allmusic in any way as the revision history will show; your reversion of my changes including citation templates with the explanation "rv vandalism" was particularly uncalled for, and highly inappropriate given WP:AGF. Your "disagree with every comment" simply shows your ignorance of DYK requirements, and highlights your continuing resistance to working with us here to improve your article to DYK standards. The same resistance was seen when you submitted Ortrun Enderlein.
You should acquaint yourself with the DYK rules if you plan to continue submitting here. The main rules page at WP:DYK, 3b, deals with hook fact citation requirements, and the "each paragraph" rule can be seen on the supplemental page, WP:DYKSG, D2. While you're there, please take a look at D4, the contents of which I've mentioned previously. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Everything seems to be OK now. 5x expansion checks out, hook is verified, article is well-supplied with footnotes now, QPQ was done (albeit minimally). LauraHale already checked for plagiarism. --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)