Template:Did you know nominations/Monday (The X-Files)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Monday (The X-Files)[edit]

Created/expanded by Gen. Quon (talk). Nominated by Grapple X (talk) at 06:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Length, creation date, hook all fine. But can you please indicate how the cited source, the "personal blog of a Christian, conservative science fiction fan attempting to live down the mortal sin of earning a law degree" (author's own words), fulfils the criteria of a reliable source? Is there not another source that can be used for this fact? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, the reference of that citation seems to be misleading, as it points to Dallas Morning News, when it is clearly not; the archived link doesn't seem to work. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You know, I just saw "Dallas Daily News" and assumed it was fine, but yeah, that does seem a bit off. I'll try to track down whether it's an author copying their newspaper column to a personal site or just a mistake; in the meantime I've found a new citation to support an alternate hook: ALT1: ... that "Monday" was ranked amongst UGO Networks' 100 Greatest Moments in Time Travel?" (Not sure about casing, could be dropped to lower case if it reads better). GRAPPLE X 15:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to clear things up, it is. The original link is here: http://topics.dallasnews.com/article/035PcPr46Qc7q (as evidenced by this google search, third one down http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=dallas+morning+news+monday+x+files&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) so I had to find an archive. It looks like, as Grapple X put it, it's an author copying their newspaper column to a personal site.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, I don't know if this makes it any better, but she has her own mini-site on the paper's page: http://topics.dallasnews.com/article/02adfTMcYj8ra?q=Tricia+Helfer--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, that perennial problem of linkrot. That's all the more reason to judiciously use webcitation to archive links for a given article, especially for sites or pages known to be transient. The google search does seem to prove that the original article was indeed published by the Dallas rag where it was claimed. I am frankly appalled that a newspaper would publish an article sourced in this way, written by an amateur. I guess this is a world where fandom breeds its own amateur "experts". As I was surprised that the revelation has not been mentioned elsewhere, I did a Gsearch. Look at what I found - but that seems to be another wiki. :-( --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
    Is it better to just remove that content and press forward with the alt hook instead? A.V. Club, a reliable website, will be reviewing the episode when their coverage of the series resumes this year, so any removed content will be replaced with other, reliable, content in due time. In the meantime, would excising the material sourced to that review be the best approach? GRAPPLE X 02:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    That may be best. I actually like the current hook, but we should use another one. Haven't seen the alt hook yet. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    It's buried up there ("... that "Monday" was ranked amongst UGO Networks' 100 Greatest Moments in Time Travel?"). If only the one source is of questionable reliability, I'd suggest nuking it and using another fact. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    So where do we stand on this at the minute? The blog link has been removed, although the review is still cited, sourced to its original newspaper appearance. It could be excised entirely if that's deemed the best option. However, an alt hook with a reliable source has been suggested, how does it rate? GRAPPLE X 05:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Casting section is unreferenced. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Cited with a New York Times obituary. GRAPPLE X 02:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • K, looks good to me. Tick based off OhC's review. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)