Talk:September 11 Digital Archive
Latest comment: 2 days ago by Sir MemeGod in topic Did you know nomination
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
edit
( )
- ... that the September 11 Digital Archive contains misleading information about the September 11 attacks?
- Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02773940601086794 "Every submission to the September 11 Digital Archive-even those that are erroneous, misleading, or dubious-contributes in some way to the historical record."
―Panamitsu (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC).
- This will not be a full review, but I think the current hook will get shot down because misinformation is an issue that plagues every wiki. Maybe another angle? Bremps... 08:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I will be reviewing this today. :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- Other problems:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
While I think this could be a good DYK, there are a few issues that need cleared up. All issues have been addressed, I think ALT1 works best! Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 23:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sir MemeGod Why do you think the contributors section is biased against contributors? I don't understand, so please enlighten me :) The only "criticism" in my view is that they can provide misleading information, but Haskins explains why this misleading information can be useful (which neutralises it).
- I've fixed the who tag.
- I think the interesting part is how the misinformation can be considered useful to historians. ALT1:
- "... that misinformation added to the September 11 Digital Archive is considered useful to historians?"
- Or if we want to avoid this misinformation thing altogether, how about ALT2:
- "... that Chinatown residents were interviewed for the September 11 Digital Archive?" Source: https://www.pcmag.com/opinions/sustaining-the-911-digital-archive
- ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- It just seemed to me to be a bit biased because it started off with “misinformation”, which usually puts people in bad light. I’d suggest just moving it down in the paragraph. Also, I personally like ALT1, since misinformation with use is actually interesting. I’m on mobile right how and can’t see the rest of the article as of now, but I’ll get to it shortly! All I need to check is that fixed who tag and we should be all good! :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 23:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Nevermind, I misread it (it's been a long day). Everything looks good! I'll take a look at the website tomorrow, given the date. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 23:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)