Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/John Christian Reid

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of John Christian Reid'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 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 Allen3 talk 16:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC).

DYK toolbox

John Christian Reid

[edit]
(
)

Created by Siegfried Nugent (talk). Self nominated at 17:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC).

  • New review needed: there is no requirement for a quid pro quo review as the creator/nominator does not yet have five DYKs, and the original review, consisting only of "good", does not explain what criteria have been met by the article. At the very least, the hook needs to be adjusted so it's grammatically correct. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • In progress. Anne (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Date and length are fine. No photos to check. Hook is accurate and cited. Sources reliable. No overly close paraphrasing. Reference #2 offline, AGF. However, reference #1 (George Reid) doesn't appear to match to your second sentence, to which it is attached. That 2nd sentence and the 9th sentence (Reid eventually stood for office ...) need sources. Reference #1 indicates that it was retrieved on 4 May 2007, but the article was just created on 30 March 2013. Also, both sentences 1 and 2 state that Reid was born in 1877, but that is not supported by the sources. In addition, please consider separating your unsourced lead from the sourced body of your article, perhaps with the heading of "Biography." Thank you for submitting your article to DYK. Anne (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

How's that? Siegfried Nugent (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Not the right source, I guess. That newspaper doesn't mention 1877 anywhere.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 14:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
It does mention that he died age 58, 1877 seems logical. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, but because you don't know what day his birthday was, that figure could be off by a year. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 15:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think we have a math issue. Reid's obituary of 1932 in reference #1 indicates that he was 58 years old. That would suggest that he was born about 1874. This is fine-tuned in reference #5, which indicates that Reid was born in 1873 in Newcastle. Anne (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Then why does the article say 1877? —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 14:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I see the article has been changed to reflect one source's interpration of Reid's birthday being in 1873. The other source still says 58 years old, which would still point back to 1877. The two sources still contradict each other, no matter which date you choose to base your information on. The problem is this: we're an encyclopedia. We don't take sides. If two reliable sources contradict one another, we need to reflect both ideas. So please don't say Reid was born in 1873 or 1877. Rather list both dates. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 12:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems that we are spending a lot of time on an issue that does NOT appear to have contradictory sources. I have found two sources for date of birth: newspaper and "The Wreck of the Adolphe." The first (indicating age 58) suggests roughly 1874 (NOT 1877) and the second specifies 1873. If there is a third source, one which indicates 1877, let me know. Otherwise, this is a matter of math and two sources which entirely support the year of birth as 1873. It's time to address the other issues discussed above. Anne (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Fine. As far as I can see, out of the abovementioned problems only the uncited "Reid eventually stood for office" statement remains.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 06:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Done. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Godspeed! —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 11:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Pulling hook from the prep-area after a post from Anne, the original reviewer, at WT:DYK. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Alright. In that case I would like the 'original reviewer' to state why he feels his original concerns haven't been adequately addressed. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 11:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I think I've made that abundantly clear. Anne (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Either I'm losing it, or it has not been "abundantly clear." Let's check what your original complaints were:
  • reference #1 (George Reid) doesn't appear to match to your second sentence, to which it is attached. →  Done
  • That 2nd sentence and the 9th sentence (Reid eventually stood for office ...) need sources. →  Done
  • Reference #1 indicates that it was retrieved on 4 May 2007, but the article was just created on 30 March 2013. →  Done
  • Also, both sentences 1 and 2 state that Reid was born in 1877, but that is not supported by the sources. →  Done
  • In addition, please consider separating your unsourced lead from the sourced body of your article, perhaps with the heading of "Biography." →  Done
So what's left?—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 19:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Amberrock, your involvement in this nomination is becoming increasingly inappropriate. Almost twelve days have elapsed from my original review and I have yet to hear directly from the contributor/nominator, Siegfried Nugent. However, I have noted a number of unhelpful comments from you. Please withdraw from this nomination process. Siegfried Nugent, please see the discussion at WT:DYK, address my concerns, and contact me. Anne (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If you were willing to work within the framework of WP:OWN, WP:CIV and WP:AGF, then that would be lovely. I'm just doing my best to make sure this very old nomination continues moving forward. I strongly distance myself from the suggestion I'm being 'unhelpful.' —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 09:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Amberrock, who has helped push this through, being my first time nominating an article to DYK. If you had taken the time (I have had very little of that to spare recently, hence my absence) to note my subsequent edits I have addressed every single one of the concerns addressed in original review. As far as I am concerned this continued discussion is a waste of time, and not one of my making.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It looks to me that the birth year confusion colored what came after, with less than optimal results. From what I can see, Siegfried Nugent posted three times on this page during the review period, on April 22 (twice) and 28, which should certainly count as a response, especially from a new submitter. As far as I can tell, the article appears to be adequately cited, the hook facts likewise, and I didn't notice any spots where the sources are still cited wrongly: Anne, if I've missed an instance that remains, please let me know. My problem is with the hook, which is not organized well and thus diminishes the effect of an otherwise interesting hook. I'm going to suggest an ALT1, which has the effect of barring me from further reviewing, though I hope it's deemed okay by whoever reviews after me (there's a new fact involved; it isn't just a reorganization):
Need a reviewer to check my ALT1 to make sure it's properly sourced and sufficiently interesting. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Refs 1 and 4 definitely cover that hook, so on the sourcing front all is well. When it comes down to interesting tidbits, I think being appointed to a French position while barely speaking their language is sufficient to raise some eyebrows. I could tick this, but since my integrity has been called into question here, I would like someone else to apply it. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 12:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It's been a few days, nobody has contradicted me and this is an old nomination. It's time to send this on. I'm approving ALT1.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 08:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/John_Christian_Reid&oldid=1022241273"