Talk:Unearthed (publication)

Did you know nomination

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 Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that undercover journalists at the Greenpeace publication Unearthed tricked an ExxonMobil lobbyist into revealing the company's agenda by posing as job recruiters? Source: [1]

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/MetLife Building
• Comment: This has an element of newsworthiness (the article mentioned was published only a few days ago), so if possible it'd be neat to see it appear while still timely. No worries if not, though.

Created by Sdkb (talk). Self-nominated at 06:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC).

• As website already in infobox suggest deleting external links section and bringing back up to size by writing more on ethics - also source mentions recruits from Times and BBC. Hope to continue review tomorrow. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Chidgk1: Having the website in both the infobox and external links section is pretty standard practice; it's what basically every GA/FA newspaper page does, and I think it's for the best here. I did add the sentence on places recruited from, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Checked length, newness, copyvio all ok
• I pondered the hook as "agenda" is a bit vague but I cannot figure out how to improve it or a better one. Can you or anyone suggest any hook improvement? If not that one will do - it is just a feeling I have that there must be a stronger version lurking.Chidgk1 (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I have a sense there might be a better word, too, but I'm not sure what it is. Some strategic vagueness can be alright; it gives readers a reason to click through. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Not essential for dyk but I would be interested in a few more words on the ethics pros and cons.
• Not essential for dyk but perhaps mention similar publication in a "see also".
• Not essential for dyk but more could be added in infobox e.g. staff number, language(s)
• Not essential for dyk but a little more background could be added from Washington Post about US politics re carbon tax - perhaps linking to Politics of climate change or Climate change policy of the United States
• type of CC licence could be wikilinked

Anyway I approve it as it is. Thanks for adding to the sum of human knowledge. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Those are good suggestions for future development of the article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)