Template:Did you know nominations/Eenoolooapik
- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Eenoolooapik
Eenoolooapik in Western clothing
- ... that Eenoolooapik (pictured) fell ill while kayaking through Aberdeen in traditional Inuit clothing? Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42870183 pg. 61
5x expanded by Generalissima (talk). Self-nominated at 06:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Eenoolooapik; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
@Generalissima: Newly expanded, interesting, no plagiarism, QPQ done. I think the article has a rather significant problem in its manner of using the sources, especially Jones (used as a source for the hook). For one, the citation for the hook comes loooong after the fact itself (some four phrases after, at the end of a paragraph). All citations to Jones are made to the entire article, 20-pages long, which is against various chapters of the Manual of Style, and which are pretty much faux citations. This explicitly contradicts DYK rules, which state that the fact for the hook has to be immediately cited (I wouldn't bother if it were after a phrase, or even two, but this is excessive); but more so, it is a very poor and lazy standard of writing, overall, since it is impossible to tell which page has which info, and makes it very hard on any other editor to introduce new info, should this appear in some other paper. (Furthermore, it seems quite implausible, or at least extraordinary, that Rowley and Jones would be usable sources for every single fact in a paragraph where they are both cited only at the end.) Please find a citation system that agrees with you, with footnotes for each fact picked out from Jones or whatever other source, then redo the referencing on the article; otherwise, this can't be used on the Main Page. Dahn (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Dahn: When nominating this, I used SFNs, but these have been repeatedly removed by another editor. I have no idea how to pursue in this situation. Generalissima (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: Sorry for not noticing the kerfuffle. I think Nikkimaria should be reverted with what are, quite frankly, disruptive edits. I just don't know which version should be reverted to. Dahn (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Dahn: When nominating this, I used SFNs, but these have been repeatedly removed by another editor. I have no idea how to pursue in this situation. Generalissima (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Dahn and Generalissima: CITEVAR is quite clear that users wishing to change a citation style established in an article are required to obtain consensus to do that first, which has not happened yet in the current talkpage discussion. Unfortunately in the absence of that, it is the conversions which are disruptive. Please stop doing that unless/until a consensus is reached. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
What is disruptive is the attempt to prevent the article from moving along to an objectively better standard. The citation standard you say was used before (I won't even check, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) was inoperable for sources which are 20-pages long, as is the case with the one used to source this hook. The objection makes no sense at all.Dahn (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Dahn and Generalissima: CITEVAR is quite clear that users wishing to change a citation style established in an article are required to obtain consensus to do that first, which has not happened yet in the current talkpage discussion. Unfortunately in the absence of that, it is the conversions which are disruptive. Please stop doing that unless/until a consensus is reached. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- It appears a compromise was reached, and I thank both parties. @Generalissima: I would still appreciate it if you could break down the citations used just once per paragraph into citations closer to the fact that they each verify; they can even be duplicate, as long as it is clear which info belongs to which source, and on which page it can be found. This includes the hook fact, but may also be applied to other portions of the article where the reference comes at the end of the paragraph. Dahn (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720: @Dahn: Oh, totally forgot about this. I think this was resolved during the GAN process? The sentence with the hook fact is certainly cited. Generalissima (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
