Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Riot City Wrestling

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Riot City Wrestling

[edit]
(
)

5x expanded by GaryColemanFan (talk). Self-nominated at 16:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC).

  • Article long enough, expanded 5x, and fully referenced; hook short enough, interesting enough, and cited to online source -- I would, however, have expected to see the first names of the "Basso Boys" mentioned in the source for the hook. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I wondered if that would be a problem. I edited the article text and provided an alternative hook that uses "the Basso Boys" as in the source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That works for me, in fact I think "Basso Boys" sounds more interesting than using their first names, so I believe ALT1 is good to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No, but I don't see why more than the flyer published on the website of the football club would be necessary to verify the information on the flyer. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you challenging its reliability? There's no DYK rule about primary sources. Primary sources are used to verify many DYK hooks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I have not received an answer to the above question, and I will be away until the 29th. I ask that this nomination be kept open (or promoted) so that I have a chance to deal with any remaining concerns. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay. I personally have a problem with the notability reliability of the hook ref, and would appreciate another reviewer looking at this. Yoninah (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I assume you mean reliability rather than notability. Anyway, feel free to ask another opinion. Of course one would always prefer a secondary source but OTOH this is hardly an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary sourcing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that a secondary source is preferable to verify the hook, but it's not required. I'm concerned with the content of the flyer, however. It states that the Basso Boys are C Grade, but doesn't say C Grade in what. It isn't specific enough to verify the claim that they played C-Grade Australian rules football. It requires a leap of faith to state that they played Australian rules football at all, and an even larger one to state that they played for this specific club, as you do in the article. Additionally, your QPQ is not sufficient, as you did not address several major points of a full DYK review, including intentionally ignoring a missing QPQ. Please complete a full QPQ. ~ RobTalk 21:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I also did the review for Template:Did you know nominations/Star Trek Beyond. For the record, despite what BlueMoonset apparently wants to believe, I did review that other one for everything except the QPQ. I didn't provide a laundry list of everything I looked at, but there were no significant problems with the article per the DYK criteria. Yes, there was some quoting, but it was all in quotation marks and properly attributed. I see that DYK is trying to become the equivalent of GA or something, but overciting is not a problem that a sub-project concerned with getting a few views for recently created articles should be concerned about. And yes, I ignored the QPQ, which, as it turns out, was a non-issue, since the nominator had completed a QPQ review anyway. The QPQ requirement was implemented to cut down on the DYK backlog. As I looked for an article to review for my QPQ, however, it became abundantly clear that there was no significant backlog, as it was difficult to even find an unreviewed article. As such, I didn't care that someone had missed a step that is clearly unnecessary except to satisfy a rule that was created to solve a problem that no longer exists. Anyhow, I changed the article so that it just says that they played C Grade Australian Rules football. Common sense dictates that an Australian rules football club promoting former C Grade players refers to C Grade Australian rules football. Are we good to go yet? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • At best, bringing in a source that says the club is C Grade Australian Rules football and a source of the club saying these two were C Grade to conclude that these wrestlers played C Grade Australian rules football is WP:SYNTH. I don't disagree that it's more likely than not, but I don't think a flyer that doesn't even mention the sport in question is a strong enough source to support the statement you're making. Without an additional source, I'd recommend suggesting an alternative hook, as there have been multiple concerns expressed about the flyer. There are currently over 200 unreviewed nominations. Intentionally ignoring any aspect of a DYK review necessitates another editor review the article, which is why I don't agree that an incomplete review meets the requirements. Either way, it's a non-issue if you've supplied another QPQ. ~ RobTalk 13:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If the Chicago Bulls advertised an appearance "former center Bill Cartwright," would you likewise assume that they were referring to a hockey player? Would anyone? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, if the Chicago Bulls advertised a fundraising baseball game between two teams made up of "former amateur level players", it would be entirely reasonable to assume that the amateur level refers to baseball, not basketball. I consider this flyer to fall far closer to the latter situation than the former. ~ RobTalk 20:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's split the difference. The closest North American parallel would be the Los Angeles Dodgers advertising an appearance by "former Triple-A players". Common sense would dictate that the phrase "Triple-A players" refers to baseball. Let's use common sense here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I looked further for any mention of the Bassos in connection to Australian rules football and found this: [1] [2], which at least mentions their names in connection to something football related. I'd accept that together with the other source, although honestly, all three of those sources are rather weak. If I'm seeking out sources for potential inclusion in the article, I'm probably too involved to okay this, and another opinion doesn't hurt anyway because I'm still not 100% confident that these sources fully support what you're saying and are a high enough quality to support a fact on the main page. Another reviewer can take a look at this. ~ RobTalk 05:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT2 ... that Australian-based Riot City Wrestling ran a Mexican-themed wrestling event?
  • ALT3 ... that Australian-based Riot City Wrestling has staged a feud with Melbourne City Wrestling?
  • ALT4 ... that the Basso Boys wrestle for Riot City Wrestling and have also played an unspecified sport at the C-Grade level?
  • After careful review of the ALT hooks (and a re-review of length, dates, and all the other usual stuff) ALT2 is on solid ground with a clean, reliable third-party source. My only issue is that the hook is a little dry. So I've struck all but ALT2 and am going to propose an ALT5 with a little more juice and a bit less repetition. Review should be simple and move this much-delayed nominee along. - Dravecky (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Article long enough, expanded 5x, no copy violations detected, ALT 5 has inline citation and is interesting enough. SojoQ (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Need a new reviewer to check ALT5, since someone other than the proposer needs to review it. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Psst..don't look now, but that's already been done, right above your comment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Then SojoQ needs to supply an approving tick if the nomination is ready for promotion, since the review isn't complete without it. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. I'm still finding my way around the reviewing process. Thanks for your comments and guidance. Just to confirm, ALT5 has inline citation and is interesting enough. Didn't mean to hold things up. SojoQ (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Trust me, it wasn't you holding things up. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Riot_City_Wrestling&oldid=742630456"