Template:Did you know nominations/Good Shepherd Sisters: Omaha Order

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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: rejected by PumpkinSky talk 13:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Good Shepherd Sisters: Omaha Order

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Good Shepherd Sisters: Omaha Order was one of the first establishments in Omaha, Nebraska to take troubled girls off the streets, away from prostitution?

Created/expanded by Kikneifl (talk). Nominated by Chzz (talk) at 19:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Long enough, new enough, hook OK length and interesting. However, I have three addressable concerns. First, the article doesn't seem to explicitly support the hook's claim that the Omaha order "was one of the first establishments" to take troubled girls off the streets (have I missed something?). It seems to me this problem could easily be fixed - either by stating the fact explicitly (with clear sourcing), or else making an alternate hook. Article seems within policy. However, most of the sources appear not to be available online. --Presearch (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Second, a request: Could the authors perhaps double-check and confirm that they did not do overly-close paraphrasing (Some of the phrasing in the article seems archaic; maybe that's somewhat OK, given the topic, though eventually you might want to make the interface between the archaic and modern phrasings smoother). This must be done by them, and accepted based on AGF, since most refs are not online. -- Presearch (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A final concern is that (if I am reading the logs correctly), the nominator lists someone else as the creator, but the nominator seems to have made about 6 edits to the article before the nomination. Is that OK? (maybe that's common for the "articles needing creation" process??) -- Presearch (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking it over; comments noted; I will do what I can, and respond ASAP. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  02:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Re. hook query, and paraphrasing query - I will ask the author.
• Re. my editing it - yes, there's nothing at all wrong with that. I helped the person write the article, and then nominated it for DYK. Anyone can edit, anyone can nominate. Authors may nominate their own work, or others may. I frequently help newer users write articles, and if appropriate I try to suggest DYK; sometimes (due to all the template-stuff and rather complicated processes) it is easier for me to actually format/place the nomination, and try to help guide it through.  Chzz  ►  11:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Anything Chzz? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• A general comment: the article really needs a rewrite--it reads too much like a non-neutral history written for the subject. I also note a primary piece of evidence (an interview with one of the sisters) and an unencyclopedic section (the core values). Drmies (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Seconding Drmies. This reads like an organization's laudatory history of itself. It needs to be rewritten in a more neutral fashion before it is suitable for DYK. The need for a more neutral perspective was underlined for me when I looked at the one online third-party source cited in the article (this book) and found that it discusses the Good Shepherd Homes in the 1890s, specifically including the one in Omaha, as "convent-reformatories" for girls who had been engaging in prostitution or were suspected of illicit sexual activity. I did not find this nuanced view of the Good Shepherd Homes' role in social history reflected in the article -- and I do think that some discussion of the Good Shepherd Homes in historical context would make this article far more interesting. --Orlady (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)