Template:Did you know nominations/The Science of Dune
- 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 Lightburst (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Science of Dune
- ... that The Science of Dune contains a scientific analysis of the fictional concepts from the Dune franchise, such as those of the sandworms, stillsuits, and the fictional drug of melange? Source: https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=ITOF&u=wikipedia&id=GALE
Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 00:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Science of Dune; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- See below.
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - See below.
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Article converted from redirect on 29 July. All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for. There are no obvious neutrality issues. The hook is both cited and interesting. QPQ has been done. The main problem is that the "Reception" section consists almost entirely of verbatim quotes. I cannot in good conscience pass this as "Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing" with such extensive use of verbatim quotes, and it seems to me to go against at least the spirit of the length requirement to count these comparatively lengthy (considering the overall length of the article) quotes against the minimum 1,500 characters. Make sure to properly paraphrase and summarize the reviews and this will be good to go. Ping Piotrus. TompaDompa (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- TompaDompa, I've done some c/e. Please note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Books guide specifically states that the reception section should "quote the opinions of book reviewers" --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, and there's a limit to how much can be done with such a brief review as the one in Science News for instance (WP:LIMITED), but we should still strive to summarize the sources in our own words where possible. WP:DYK says that
the emphasis at DYK is on new and original content
, after all. Anyway, I've done some further editing myself and find the article to now be
ready. TompaDompa (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, and there's a limit to how much can be done with such a brief review as the one in Science News for instance (WP:LIMITED), but we should still strive to summarize the sources in our own words where possible. WP:DYK says that
