Template:Did you know nominations/Dickie Dodds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Dickie Dodds's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the WikiProject Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Rcsprinter (rap) @ 10:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC).

Dickie Dodds[edit]

Created by Johnlp (talk). Self nom at 14:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Symbol possible vote.svg Long enough, new enough, hook is in article. However, I've identified numerous sourcing issues, as follows:
  • Final paragraph of first section: virtually none of that is in the source, which is just stats for the match
  • He took some while...dub Dodds 'the miracle man'." Cited to source #2, which doesn't mention Rist or the quote
  • "Dodds went straight into the Essex" — ditto first comment after the colon
  • "and he finished the season with 1050 runs at an average of 25.60" — ditto first comment after the colon
  • 157=highest lifetime score isn't in the source, which only discusses this match and previous matches, not future ones
  • No citations for the second half of second paragraph, "First-class cricket career"
  • Most of citation #15 content in final paragraph, "First-class cricket career", isn't in the source; ditto first comment after the colon
These can be fixed, but I'm somewhat uncomfortable with relying on offline sources (especially for the hook) when there are so many pieces attributed to sources that don't contain the information in question. As well, I count fourteen DYKs in your talk archives, but you didn't mention reviewing another article; please review one, or provide a link if you already did. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote4.png I've tidied up a lot of the referencing; most of it wasn't really attributed to sources that didn't contain the information, but rather just missing references for information that isn't really of the type that is likely to be challenged. Per the MOS, this doesn't strictly need to be referenced, although standards creep has led to an expectation that it will be. Each bit of information that is directly followed by a reference is accurately referenced, and I would have full confidence in assuming good faith for the offline reference provided for the hook and elsewhere. However, I don't feel that I am impartial enough to formally pass the hook, so I will leave that for someone else. Harrias talk 11:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry: I've been away. Reference #1 contains full details of career including elements such as highest score. I'll percolate that through the article if that would help. The substantive reference for the hook is #3; there's an online version of this at http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/164/2/206931066w16/purl=rc1_TTDA_0_CS168787813&dyn=7!xrn_48_0_CS168787813&hst_1 that I access through my local library, but as it's a Murdoch publication, other online access is behind a paywall and my money doesn't stretch that far. Johnlp (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Now the situation is even murkier, since Harrias has added multiple citations for the same pieces of text in numerous sections. Please place exactly one citation for each piece of text, because it's substantially more difficult to verify something if you have to check multiple sources to see which part of a sentence came from what. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg It's been almost two weeks since the most recent post. What's the current status of this review and article in terms of DYK requirements? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I rather gave up on this, as the process seems a lot less congenial than the previous times when I've submitted DYKs without difficulty. Johnlp (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote4.png I think this needs a re-review in light of Harrias's work in supplying extra refs. Nyttend's comment about "one citation for each piece of text" is neither a DYK requirement nor Wikipedia policy. Moswento talky 11:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Article: is long enough and is five times expanded within five days nominated 14:23, 27 January 2013 at 7,339 bytes. At 09:39, 22 January 2013 it was 530 bytes; appears to be neutral; cites sources and appears free of plagiarism (spot check only). It is not a BLP.
  • Hook: I have access to The Times Friday, Nov 05, 1976; pg. 10; Issue 59853; col D and I can confirm that the hook facts are in that article
  • Other: QPQ not compliant; No images to check

Symbol question.svg It might seem crass to hold this article after so long but it does appear to me from reading other DYK's that quid pro quo compliance is non-negotiable. Therefore, until editor confirms that another DYK has been reviewed, I cannot pass this article --Senra (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go (and thank you, Johnlp) --Senra (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)