Template:Did you know nominations/Museum of Goa
- 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 Allen3 talk 12:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Museum of Goa
[edit]- ... that the Museum of Goa in India does not host a permanent collection, instead operating as a gallery temporarily exhibiting works from around the world?
- Reviewed: Adam Dahlberg
- Comment: Published to main namespace on 4 January 2016 (diff)
Created by Subodhkerkar (talk). Nominated by Northamerica1000 (talk) at 04:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- One reference is to Facebook, which not a reliable source - Neutral: - tone is promotional in places. Phrases such as "take art to the masses", "break the elitism barrier that so often exists in the art world" appear to reflect the artists's promotional material. per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, they should be attributed, or replaced with more neutral phasing
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
With the exception of the Fb ref, most the sources appear to be reliable. Some of the reports show almost gushing enthusiasm, and none offer even mild criticism, which led me to wonder if they had been cherrypicked. Then I spotted that the article's creator[1] User:Subodhkerkar is a single-purpose account of the same name as the Museum's founder, which is confirmed by his userpage. (That userpage is an autobiography which was userfied from mainspace on 4 January 2016 [2]. Even as userpage, it appears to contravene WP:UP#PROMO, but that's a separate issue).
My initial response to this article was to wonder whether the promotional tone was inadvertent, but when I see the WP:COI origins of the article, I think it's right to insist on a tighter compliance with neutrality principles. WP:NOTPROMOTION, esp on the front page.
In particular, none of the reviews appear to critique the branding as a "museum", whereas the TRipAdvisor reviews suggest it is a hybrid commercial gallery/museum. TripAdvisor is far from a reliable source, but it does suggest that a non-promotional perspective is rather different to that presented.
I am not sure how big a rewrite is needed to meet neutrality guidelines, but I fear it may be substantial. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Short reply – I didn't view the creator's user page, but promo there is a separate matter from the article itself. Regarding sources that criticize the museum, they may not exist yet, because this is a new museum that opened in November 2015. I scoured available sources quite thoroughly during the process of working on the article, but not a whole lot of them are actually available (see find sources options below). North America1000 16:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Northamerica1000: Sorry, but I don't regard the COI as a separate issue. (Note that I am not in any way suggesting that you have a COI here. Ideally you would have spotted the creator's COI and disclosed it in the nomination, but we don't all spot everything and I am sure you acted in good faith to improve the article before nominating it).
In a pure article-quality test, then I'd agree that the COI is an issue only pointing to a need for careful scrutiny -- but this isn't just an article-quality test like GA/FA. This is a decision about whether an article gets a hook on the front page of one of the world's busiest websites.
Given the blatant self-promotion behind this article's creation, I think there is a good case for simply rejecting it from DYK entirely. It seems like a very bad idea open up DYK up as a vector for self-promotion. Write your self-promotional COI article, have it polished a bit by an uninvolved and experienced editor, and see it on the front page? Not a good idea.
So I was minded to reject it outright, but am prepared to consider that it might be ok if it meets a much higher standard of neutrality than I would otherwise impose at DYK. I hope that principle is acceptable to you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Northamerica1000: Sorry, but I don't regard the COI as a separate issue. (Note that I am not in any way suggesting that you have a COI here. Ideally you would have spotted the creator's COI and disclosed it in the nomination, but we don't all spot everything and I am sure you acted in good faith to improve the article before nominating it).
- I removed the Facebook source, which was used to verify content as a primary source. North America1000 16:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: I disagree with rejecting the nomination herein in an abrupt manner. While you were typing out your reply above, I have been copy editing the article to provide a neutral point of view. Check it out now, but please allow me some time to finish before rejecting the topic and my work in entirety. The article just needs a bit more copy editing. North America1000 17:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Northamerica1000: Some misunderstanding here: I have not rejected it. I have merely set out the principle by which I am reviewing it, namely that even if an article with such blatantly self-promotional origins is not rejected outright, it gets no leeway from me on neutrality.
There is no rush, so please take your time and let me know when you think you have finished fixing it. Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Northamerica1000: Some misunderstanding here: I have not rejected it. I have merely set out the principle by which I am reviewing it, namely that even if an article with such blatantly self-promotional origins is not rejected outright, it gets no leeway from me on neutrality.
Review update needed. I have overhauled the article, and it is now written in an entirely neutral tone. Additional matters in the initial review and commentary have also all been addressed. North America1000 07:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
After that comprehensive rewrite (thanks Northamerica1000, and sorry for the slow reply), the promotional tone has gone, and the article is now nicely-written and neutral. It ticks all the formal DYK boxes, so I have ticked it as good to go.
However, I remain concerned about the article's promotional origins. There are no grounds at all for deletion when it has been so well rewritten, but DYK's purpose is to reward editors. Northamerica1000 clearly merits reward for cleaning up and improving this article, but a slot on the front page would also have the unfortunate effect of rewarding the blatant self-promotion of User:Subodhkerkar. I am going to post a note about this on WT:DYK, to seek other views. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia talk:Did you know#DYK_unintentionally_aiding_self-promotion (permalink). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Update: I have closed that discussion[3], as there is a clear consensus that this item should proceed to its DYK slot on the front page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
