- 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 Rcsprinter123 (state) @ 19:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- ... that Steve Ormerod is chair of Europe's largest wildlife conservation charity?
Created by Pigsonthewing (talk). Self nominated at 16:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC).
- Article is new enough, but requires expansion as it is not long enough at 1423 characters. Two other problems: there are two citation needed tags that should be addressed, and the only time "largest wildlife charity" is mentioned is in the lead. Please do a QPQ as well. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Taylor Trescott: I believe that the length is now adequate; the CNs are gone. It would seem superfluous to repeat the "largest charity" statement again in a short article. QPQ to follow shortly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sadly, the article needs a few extra characters (it is currently 1446 characters and needs to be 1500). Also, the DYK hook fact needs to be sourced in the article; even a source in the lead for "biggest wildlife fund" would be better than nothing. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Extra characters added. I suggest an alternative hook, ALT1: ... that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds's new chair, Steve Ormerod, already has a Marsh Award for Marine and Freshwater Conservation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- While the article is now 1537 prose characters according to DYKcheck, the QPQ is still outstanding; Andy Mabbett, this can't go anywhere without a quid pro quo review. Furthermore, both hooks are problematic due to article/source disagreements and failure to source hook facts in the article:
- Original hook does not source "Europe's largest wildlife charity", and the RSPB site itself isn't that expansive, saying "Europe's largest wildlife conservation charity", not the same thing. For DYK, hook facts need to be sourced by the end of the article sentence in which they appear. I've struck the hook since sourcing is neither in the article near the fact nor confirms its accuracy, but it can be restored if appropriately modified and sourced.
- Alternate hook calls Ormerod a "new chair", something not in the article, and as he was appointed on 6 October 2012, the "new" is not currently accurate. Furthermore, he's generally called "Council Chair" in the various sources (he himself says "chair RSPB Council" in the RSPB one), which strikes me as a significant distinction. I'm also dubious about the use of "already"—is it unusual to have the award sooner?—and not sure why the Marsh award makes for an interesting hook (or why it's said in the article to be the Zoological Society of London's award, when the Marsh page for Ormerod only calls ZSL a partner). The Marsh page does make compelling reading on the areas and importance of Ormerod's research, which I hadn't known from reading the article. The article says nothing about his research, and needs to. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
"Wildlife charity" and "wildlife conservation charity" are synonymous. "Council Chair" (of the RSPB) and "chair RSPB Council" are synonymous with "chair of the RSPB". But perhaps it's time to invite someone else to suggest a hook? As to the article content, be my guest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Pigsonthewing, we still need the QPQ review doing before the article can be ticked. Belle (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
- One last try...if there is an Andy Mabbett in the encyclopedic ether could he please come to the DYK nominations page where the are unreviewed articles waiting. Belle (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm waiting for response to my comment of 27 July (or others' views on BlueMoonset's comment from earlier the same day). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- No need to wait (nobody will take offence if you do the QPQ before you get a reply; unless you swear and are insulting throughout it that is, but I doubt that's likely) Belle (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett, my experience is that you
frequently (revision: sometimes) do not do QPQs even once reviews commence —I've had to reject several of your nominations for that reason in the past, despite multiple reminders—so there is no point in my commenting further unless you're actually going to do the quid pro quo review. In this case, perhaps a deadline will help: if a QPQ has not been completed by the end of the day on August 10, the end of the seventh week after the nomination was submitted, it will be closed. If a QPQ is done by then, the review process will continue. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- reject several of your nominations. Your deadline is out-of-process, and ignores the "Wikibreak" template on my user page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Andy Mabbett, it's really not my responsibility to keep track of your schedule. Since you have pointed out that Wikimania was ongoing and you were at it, I'm happy to give you another three days (now that Wikimania is over) to finish a QPQ review that should have been done seven weeks ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, I don't expect you to "keep track of my schedule", but I had hoped that you would realise that setting arbitrary deadlines is unhelpful - it is also out of process, unless you can point to a requirement for me to do so before other issues are resolved. I still await a response to my points above, but before we discuss that, perhaps you can find time to substantiate your "reject several of your nominations" accusation, or withdraw it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- Andy, you are well past any reasonable deadline on supplying your QPQ. Most people would have closed this nomination by now; I'm letting you know that it will be closed no later than August 14 unless you have supplied said QPQ by then. It's your choice.
- As for the rejected nominations (revision: for articles by others) you made, Template:Did you know nominations/Mick Rossi, Template:Did you know nominations/The Civil Affairs Staging Area, and Template:Did you know nominations/Jean Venables are three; Template:Did you know nominations/Reginald Mount and Template:Did you know nominations/Odeon, Kingstanding would have been rejected had Gerda not stepped in and donated your undone QPQs for you. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- There are no reasonable deadlines; if you close this nomination while it is still under discussion (I repeat, "I still await a response to my points above"), you will be acting out of process; I asked you above to "point to a requirement for me to do [my QPQ] before other issues are resolved" and you have failed to do so. DYK is not a personal fiefdom where you may invent and apply your own rules. Furthermore, all three of the closed nominations which you offer as evidence above are all articles written by other editors, not me, so no QPQ was due, and they were closed for other reasons, which the original authors were unable or unwilling to address. Your claim that you have had to reject several of my nominations for lack of QPQ is a lie. I accordingly suggest you disengage from this nomination and leave it for others to discuss. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Andy, I need to apologize: my memory had conflated your lack of response on those other closed nominations, and the near-closing of Reginald Mount (and the undone QPQs donated by Gerda), as a failure that led to a closure of your own self-nominations. This does not excuse my conflation, but it was an error, not a deliberate lie. I should point out that when you nominate article by others, it is still your responsibility to respond to all issues raised and address or discuss them on the nomination page, rather than leave reviewers unanswered. If when you contact them the original editors can't or won't address the issues, and you can't or won't as well, then post to say that and withdraw the nomination. However, a QPQ is an absolute requirement for self-noms, and you haven't supplied it yet for this nomination. DYK is indeed not a personal fiefdom, so you cannot dictate the order in which issues need to be discussed: I see no point to spending any further time reviewing other issues until this one has been addressed, since the nomination cannot pass without it. It's like the article being too short: without adequate length, the nomination is dead in its tracks regardless of other issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your overdue apology; however I note that you have not yet struck through your false allegation. You note that I have not yet supplied a QPQ, and you are correct. The apposite word in your comment is "yet". You see no point in spending any further time reviewing other issues until I have done. I see no point in supplying one until my points above are responded to. We are thus at an impasse. However, you and I are not the only commenters; others might have the courtesy of giving a reply to the points I put to you, on 27 July, which you have continued to ignore. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Struck (with two revisions). Thanks for the reminder. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
So, to be clear, not one of my many DYK nominations has ever failed for lack of QPQ. Now would someone like to address the outstanding points referred to, above? As I wrote on 27 July: ""Wildlife charity" and "wildlife conservation charity" are synonymous. "Council Chair" (of the RSPB) and "chair RSPB Council" are synonymous with "chair of the RSPB". But perhaps it's time to invite someone else to suggest a hook? As to the article content, be my guest." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have reviewed and fixed this nomination. Its fine and subject to QPQ its good to go. Victuallers (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. DYK done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have checked the hook fact and I can see no obvious paraphrasing. Article and hook are both OK for length and QPQ done Victuallers (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)