Talk:Mick Moloney

Latest comment: 2 years ago by CSJJ104 in topic Did you know nomination

Birth year

edit

When was he born? Badagnani (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

1944, according to the NEA website. Badagnani (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Did you know nomination

edit
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 CSJJ104 (talk21:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

 
Mick Moloney

5x expanded by Bloom6132 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC).Reply

  •   This is more of a comment than a review for now, but perhaps something more can be said about Moloney here? The hook is somewhat on the pedestrian side of things given that the connection between "social worker" and "founding a band" isn't clear here. Maybe either a hook about his father being an air traffic controller or the Green Fields being a band that plays Irish music could add interest? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  •   Disagree. The hook should be focused the subject himself, not his family members/what they did. And adding more details to the hook will make it less interesting. I think Moloney bridging two distinct fields transcontinentally makes for a far more interesting hook than what could be said using the suggestions above. Full review needed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Bloom6132: Still with us? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Overlap with LoC source was addressed back on August 6 (though such overlap may actually be permissible since that source is a work of the U.S. government). Whatever overlap remains are mostly proper names that fall under WP:LIMITED. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  •   I am fine with ALT1. I am, however, not fine with you striking ALT0, as it satisfies WP:DYKHOOK (i.e. sourced, neutral, not unduly negative, etc.). Requesting a second look at both ALT0 and ALT1 from an uninvolved editor (who can also confirmed that any WP:CLOP has been removed). —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  I frankly do not think that ALT0 meets the "interesting to a broad audience" criterion here. And "interesting to a broad audience" is also a part of WP:DYKHOOK. I have re-struck ALT0 as nominators generally don't unstrike an already struck hook without some discussion with the reviewer. As I mentioned earlier, I am not against ALT0's hook fact, merely its wording. I am still open to some variation of ALT0 (perhaps with additional context or different wording), just not ALT0 as currently written. If you are not willing to propose alternate versions of ALT0 then I suppose I'll be approving ALT1 instead as a compromise. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  Well, I disagree with your subjective assessment (which is not the case with the other criteria in WP:DYKHOOK – they're pretty clear cut and objective). The last time you suggested an alternative hook for one of my noms claiming that it would make a better, more catchy DYK hook (Wayne Cooper (basketball), back in June this year), it drew in just 1,938 views. So there is good reason to (at the very least) question your take on what constitutes "interesting to a broad audience". That's why I've asked for an uninvolved editor to have a look at ALT0 and ALT1. For the new reviewer:
Again, for an uninvolved editor to assess. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm not exactly sure why you really want ALT0 as written specifically when ALT1 already exists and is a suitable alternative. You already said that you're fine with ALT1, so why not just go with it? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Is there anything wrong with leaving it to the nom promoter decide? I'm fine if they choose ALT1 over ALT0, but the choice should at least be presented to them. It's not like ALT1 is palpably the superior hook that you're making it out to be. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I like ALT0, but I'd want to see some clarification about what the Green Fields of America is – it wasn't immediately clear to me where the hookiness came from. Other than that, i suppose it's passably interesting. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 19:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've now specified that it is an Irish traditional music ensemble. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
  relying on Narutolovehinata5's original review, I'll give this a tick. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 17:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Given that this has stalled for quite some time, I'll approve ALT1 as well – it'd slipped my mind that i could choose both. if a promoter wants either one, they're welcome to pick. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 02:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply