A fact from English Building, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 August 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion
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.
... that according to campus legend, the English Building at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign is haunted by the ghost of a female student who drowned in the building's pool? Students using the building have reported mysterious phenomena and the faint voice of a woman sounding from nowhere." Source:[1]
Article new and long enough, generally well written but poorly sourced. I would go so far as to say most of the article is unsourced or the sources aren't clear. I also highly recommend moving the article to English Building, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Just about every university will have an "English building", and many of them will be officially called that, let alone all the buildings named after people called English, or representing England at various events. It needs the disambiguation unless you think it's undoubtedly the main thing in existence referred to as "English building" (the answer is no, it isn't). What sources are used appear to be almost entirely primary sources, not indicating that it has outside notability. I am also concerned that Chevsapher has undisclosed COI (editing behavior)? Similarly, I would like more information on the licenses for the images in the article. But you and JustinMal1 still have a few more days to work on the article before it would even be too late to nominate for DYK, and I'd offer a grace period for improvements after that date (24th) too. Kingsif (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the helpful feedback. To address your points:
~95% of the article is sourced, and the few statements that are not sourced are common general knowledge. If I need to change the citation style, I am happy to do so.
I like the suggestion about creating disambiguation page, and I saw that JustinMal1 just moved the article to the suggested namespace.
Concerning the potential COI, I am a student at the university, but I am not affiliated with the units that occupy the building. If this is still qualifiable as a COI, I will stop editing University of Illinois articles.
The images' origins and licenses are explained on their Wikimedia pages. The photos I personally uploaded are photos I took myself.
I tried to avoid primary sources, but I will agree that many of the secondary sources are internal to the university. To add more external sources, I would need to dig more into two main reasons why the building is externally relevant, which are (1) it was designed by the pre-eminent architectural firm of the Beaux-Arts era, and (2) it was the home of one of the most influential early home economics departments in the U.S., whose research helped drive the early-20th-century revolution in domestic efficiency. I would love to flesh out this article more fully, but unfortunately, my time is limited. I cannot yet commit to spending a few full days with a stack of books.
Kingsif, it's been over a month, and no significant edits have been made to the article, though it was moved as you suggested. Can you please take a look at Chevsapher's response and the article itself, and determine whether the nomination should proceed? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
There are at least 3 paragraphs without a single citation, and many others with only one that clearly applies to only a sentence or two. Since the article is so short, that's nowhere near "95% sourced". Citation style hasn't accepted "common knowledge" or "dump a bibliography at the end" for a long time now, so I refuse to believe anyone thinks this could be adequate. Kingsif (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
For each "paragraph without a single citation," just go down to the next paragraph and find the first source cited. For example, the first 2 paragraphs under "Architecture" are both sourced from [9], with the citation sitting in the second paragraph. If this is not proper formatting, I am happy to change it. The only "common knowledge" statement is the sentence about which units currently occupy the building; a quick Google search will confirm their locations. All other information is sourced from the citations, and if you have any doubts, you are welcome to check. Chevsapher (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Chevsapher, citations do not cover multiple paragraphs on Wikipedia. If a source is used for consecutive paragraphs, each paragraph must cite the source. Google search is not adequate; if you cannot find an actual source for the material, since it has been challenged, then it shouldn't be included in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Overall: Article was created May 16 and nominated one day later, therefore it is new enough. The length is adequate and the article now meets DYK sourcing criteria. The article is neutral in tone. I detected to plagiarism issues and the Earwig tool only highlighted proper nouns which are not violations. All images used in the article are freely licensed on the Commons. The nominator does not appear to have any DYK credits, therefore a QPQ is not required. The hook is short enough at 180 characters, interesting to a broad audience, properly cited in the article, and verified in the cited sources. Flibirigit (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Article new and long enough, generally well written but poorly sourced. I would go so far as to say most of the article is unsourced or the sources aren't clear. I also highly recommend moving the article to English Building, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Just about every university will have an "English building", and many of them will be officially called that, let alone all the buildings named after people called English, or representing England at various events. It needs the disambiguation unless you think it's undoubtedly the main thing in existence referred to as "English building" (the answer is no, it isn't). What sources are used appear to be almost entirely primary sources, not indicating that it has outside notability. I am also concerned that Chevsapher has undisclosed COI (editing behavior)? Similarly, I would like more information on the licenses for the images in the article. But you and JustinMal1 still have a few more days to work on the article before it would even be too late to nominate for DYK, and I'd offer a grace period for improvements after that date (24th) too. Kingsif (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
There are at least 3 paragraphs without a single citation, and many others with only one that clearly applies to only a sentence or two. Since the article is so short, that's nowhere near "95% sourced". Citation style hasn't accepted "common knowledge" or "dump a bibliography at the end" for a long time now, so I refuse to believe anyone thinks this could be adequate. Kingsif (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Probably now ready for a second look. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Reviewing... Flibirigit (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Article was created May 16 and nominated one day later, therefore it is new enough. The length is adequate and the article now meets DYK sourcing criteria. The article is neutral in tone. I detected to plagiarism issues and the Earwig tool only highlighted proper nouns which are not violations. All images used in the article are freely licensed on the Commons. The nominator does not appear to have any DYK credits, therefore a QPQ is not required. The hook is short enough at 180 characters, interesting to a broad audience, properly cited in the article, and verified in the cited sources. Flibirigit (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)