A fact from Statistics of Deadly Quarrels appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 February 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Latest comment: 1 year ago17 comments4 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.
ALT1: ... that Statistics of Deadly Quarrels is seen as a pioneering study in the mathematical study on the origins of war? Source: numerous sources cited, see quotations ex. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2282320?origin=crossref that the book "establish[es] Richardson as an important precursor.... in the mathematical analysis of conflict"
Overall: Article meets eligibility criteria - newness and length. Earwig does not find any major issues. However, the article needs a thorough copy-edit. Also, please see if you can remove the 10 source links in the lede and move it to the respective sentences in the body. Regarding the hooks. Original hook - unable to see "world government" in the snippet that is visible at Science Mag. However, I suspect that this is due to the fact that the website only gives out the first page. Please can you help share the exact sentence here. Both hooks are interesting though I would suggest a minor edit on the first hook. I prefer the first hook over the second one. Please see if this is acceptable. Hook is interesting. QPQ is done. Ktin (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Aloha, Ktin! At the risk of seeming lazy, that activity was my round. Sorry it couldn't have been more help, but I think I've had enough of that one; good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Ktin: For world government, see [1]: "... governments exert a local "pacifying" influence: with the same physical opportunities for fighting, groups living under the same government are less likely to engage in "deadly quarrels" among themselves than they are to fight outsiders. Richardson considered this to be the most vital conclusion suggested by his statistical study; it pointed to world government as the most promising solution of the problem of war." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here11:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Piotrus. Hook is now sourced. Please can you attempt one round of copy-edits across the article and then this should be good to go. Ktin (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Piotrus: thanks much. Almost there. I have added a few comments to the article -- please see if you can take another pass. Also, please can you reduce the number of links in the lede. e.g. 10 links to the first sentence. You can move those links to other sections of the article. Ktin (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Ktin: I've taken care of the lead issue, I hope. Regarding clarifications, I am not sure what needs to be clarified (I've simplified one sentence a bit). Of course, the article can be expanded, but this is not necessary for a DYK. If this was a Good Article review, I'd of course agree. If you think something is unclear, I'd suggest explaining any issues on talk of the article, for consideration in the coming weeks/months/years, unless you think something here fails DYK-eligibility criteria and needs to be immediatly addressed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Piotrus and Ktin: Nearly there for ALT 0.1. DYK rule #3b requires Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article. Translation: "Each sentence has to have a footnote at the end of it, if it contains the fact mentioned in the DYK hook, even if this results in repetitive footnotes or breaks your article's citation style." I tried to see if I could quickly fix this, and ended up removing said fact (re: "world government") out of parentheses, as it seems like bad form to drive main page traffic to a parenthetical statement... Anyway, I'm sure for either of you, this will be a quick fix, so please take a look, so we can promote soon. Thanks! Cielquiparle (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Piotrus: Sorry, looking at it again, my two questions are: 1) Now that I've put a full stop/period after the word "infectious", what footnotes belong there? Is it correct to simply repeat both footnotes 3 and 9? 2) Could you also please add a footnote after the next sentence ending "as well"? Cielquiparle (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cielquiparle, Yes, you can repeat footnotes 3 and 9 there, but I don't think MoS recommends this since they are also repeated in the next sentence. Ditto for "as well". The references in the final sentence are for the content in several sentences preceding them. I don't think DYK rules ask us to break MoS practices. Per WP:CITEFOOT: "it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text". I won't object if you add them but I believe it is not necessary. Sinde note: I'll be AFK for a few days starting very soon and may not be able to respond promptly here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here15:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Piotrus. No, the meaning of DYK rule #3b (quoted above) is that DYK hook citation rules supercede MoS practices. Counterintuitive, I know. I only just learned this in Hook Promotion 101. So I'm trying to fix it now, before it gets flagged again further downstream. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Article meets eligibility criteria - newness and length. Earwig does not find any major issues. However, the article needs a thorough copy-edit. Also, please see if you can remove the 10 source links in the lede and move it to the respective sentences in the body. Regarding the hooks. Original hook - unable to see "world government" in the snippet that is visible at Science Mag. However, I suspect that this is due to the fact that the website only gives out the first page. Please can you help share the exact sentence here. Both hooks are interesting though I would suggest a minor edit on the first hook. I prefer the first hook over the second one. Please see if this is acceptable. Hook is interesting. QPQ is done. Ktin (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)