Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Carla Vernón

< Template:Did you know nominations
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: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 12:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Carla Vernón

(
)

Moved to mainspace by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self-nominated at 04:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Carla Vernón; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

@DYK admins: - I want to make sure you notice that I as an experienced DYK editor am a WP:COI editor in this instance regarding my sister. If you look at the page statistics, you will see I am the main editor, but by being COI, I have had to step aside a bit.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  • This is a very tricky nomination because I am a very experienced DYK editor, who is a COI editor for this subject. I created this article in December and because the subject is my sister, there have been complications regarding taking it live to the encyclopedia.

It was declined at WP:AFC in January. It finally emerged from AFC successfully last week.

The version that emerged seems to have a few made up content elements and User:FeralOink has not had a chance to respond as to why he stated that my sister was once a professional dancer when the source does not support this. Her most important point of notability is obscured in the current version also. It is the DYK hook fact, yet not properly included in the article.

I am shooting for a DYK run on my sister's birthday of October 25. So we have time to get things straightened out.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, this is mistagged as if I moved it into the mainspace. A second editor successfully steered it through AFC.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Regarding an image, the current one obscures her face below her lower lip by a slice of pizza. Some have stated her whole face is obscured, which is a bit of an overexaggeration. Her normal hair also obscures some of her face, but the pizza only obscures below the lower lip. There is no reason to penalize this picture just because my sister is not a sexy bald-headed person like me. I will be visiting her October 4-10 and will produce a viable picture by October 11. I am also going to be working with her regarding an earlier picture submission.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
  • This is not a review but a comment, but per Wikipedia talk:Did you know#COI issue at Carla Vernón there are COI concerns with the nomination. As such, any prospective reviewers need to take that in mind when reviewing this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I edited a significant amount of the article, as has FeralOink, and neither of us have COIs on this subject. Furthermore, my review of the article saw little COI issues even from much earlier on and it honestly felt that the openly acknowledged COI was being used by some editors in order to make negative changes to the article and inappropriate requirements of content alteration. SilverserenC 22:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Noting per the same WT:DYK convo that I intend to review this soon. There's a lot going on here, so give me a day or two to finish catching up and type up something sufficiently in-depth. Vaticidalprophet 06:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
This is an unusually in-depth review for DYK, considering the circumstances. It's obviously important that we get this one right, and that we don't either auto-ban it out of COI paranoia or promote it prematurely. Position statement, if you will: I am not at all a bureaucratic type, and do not penalize things like "editor following COI guidelines took BLP policy as trumping them and made direct edits to fix factual errors" (BLP-policy does in fact beat COI-guideline). But I care a lot about articles being good. I'm also very interested in Oink's and Seren's commentary, and invite them to say anything they wish.

The article itself: Usual box-ticking exercises (basic copyvio check, eligibility, etc) are fine. There are very few contemporary business articles that I see nothing at all to query in, but this one...graded on that curve, doesn't have much. I made some minor wording tweaks. I wonder, from an "abundance of caution" perspective, if the section headers should be revised; in particular, granting an additional header to her charitable pursuits grants them substantial weight in the article in a way common in COI editing but not in unattached editing for similar subjects. Given the overall length of the article and the accessibility problem that heavy subsectioning presents on mobile, it may be preferable to have a generalized "Career" header with subheaders as appropriate. I'm also unsure about some choices of what to include, particularly The initial challenges she faces as CEO are to address the company's low share price and define a new strategy that results in improved profitability in 2024 (which sounds very press-release and not like an article in a reference work) and the full list of every brand she ran at General Mills. The challenges-she-faces-as-CEO sentence is the biggest concern at the moment. Vaticidalprophet 01:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The hook is currently problematic, as it's not in the article. I looked through prior revisions to see if it was previously included and removed, but it doesn't seem to have ever been incorporated. The source says that, so the article could be revised to say it, or we could revise the hook to the article's claim and the more common claim in sources, which is "one of the only Afro-Latinas". I think "first" is better though this is a perpetual WT:DYK drama and the article should, if it's supported by enough sources, be revised to say that. I'll let Oink and Seren make that judgement call for now, because googling sources seem fairly split on whether they describe her as "first" or "one of the only". I assume both are true, to be clear, it's just a matter of what we can most carefully say. Vaticidalprophet 01:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  • I'll reveal a little inside information. A hires a person based on suitability for the job. Honest did not decide it was time to pick an Afro-Latina. They felt that based on their personal business interactions with my sister and her career track record on matters of import to their corporate mission, she was well-suited for the job. Once they decided they wanted to hire her and vetted her to be a public company CEO, they then realized that they may have something special on their hands, but were not sure. It is hard to prove the negative (that no A-Ls have been public CEOs before). If one were known, it is easy to prove the positive that there has been one. The complication is that in recent times it has become more fashionable to be Afro-American and Hispanic/Latinx-American. When I was in school and trying to find jobs you had to choose one box or the other. Even when Carla started her career, she had to choose one or the other. Now that you can be both, it is not clear whether someone in the era of being only able to check one box, was both. There certainly aren't a lot of either Afro-American women who have been CEOs of public companies or Latinx women who have been CEOs of public companies. However, there is no Wikipedia list or easy list to find on the matter. Out of an abundance of caution at the time of her public announcement as CEO, the decision was made to avoid potential controversy of declaring her to be the first, but to make it clear that she was one of the first and monitor feedback. Months later, there were no mentions of prior A-L woman CEOs of public companies. There is no proof that one has not preceded her, but there no proof that one has. The claim is being made and has yet to be refuted. Honest PR has not been corrected. It is also possible that someone who was an Afro-Latino CEO of a public company now identifies as female, but none are known.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Aside: I know I am not suppose to removed sourced content based on my WP:OR, but my sister has made it clear to me that it has been determined that there existed a higher ranking woman of color (by the name of Alicia Boler Davis) at Amazon while she was there. Boler Davis did leave Amazon before my sister however.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The image has been discussed. I don't agree with Oink's call that the image is a BLP vio -- I could show you many BLPs with way worse. Nonetheless, we may as well officially say at the moment that this is not the image that will appear on the main page. I await the release of a better image early next month or so, and will review it then. (Wearing my prepbuilder hat, I'll take the opportunity to note that image hooks are prepbuilder discretion and not guaranteed.) Vaticidalprophet 01:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Honest PR and communication is evaluating the WP:DCM page to button up an image that is more professional image for this page. My current expectation is that before I visit my sister in October, we will have a better main image, one that may even be suitable for the main page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The date request I am really not sold on. I am open to being convinced, but date requests are inherently problematic from a prepbuilder POV due to the disruption they induce when building sets, rebuilding sets, swapping hooks, changing from 12- to 24-hour sets, etc. Date requests for a BLP's birthday have to clear a very high bar. If the birthday can't even be cited in the article yet, I'm not seeing that bar cleared. This is, to be absolutely clear, a very different statement from "I reject the idea of this running on her birthday out of hand", or "I want the article promoted prematurely" (given we're working on a long timeframe re. securing images and making sure we have the article right, I'm happy to take this well into October anyway). This specific element I want to hear more about from the people watching on WT:DYK and the non-COI editors who've been working on this article. Vaticidalprophet 01:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  • I have stated at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#COI_issue_at_Carla_Vernón, that I have probably made nearly a hundred date request for the main page (TFA, TFL, POTD and DYK combined) on behalf of myself and WP:CHICAGO. I don't recall a non-rivalrous date being declined. There is a preference for date relevant content on the main page and as User:Narutolovehinata5 has stated below, date request are leniently granted. In this case, I don't see COI as a valid reason to decline the request. However, I admit that the date is not currently sourced in the article. At best, we might be able to source her birthdate with social media thanks for the BDay well-wishes or something like that. The only source of her birthdate that I have seen on the internet has the wrong date. I would not argue with this reasoning for a decline, but attributing it to a COI birthday gift seems wrong.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

This is an unusual case -- I can think of other articles with COIs involved that have been nominated at DYK, but nothing at all similar to this. I'm happy to work here, because it's an interesting concept and I want to make sure we get it right. I think this can run, but I'm querying the more tonally incongruous aspects of the article, and I don't want to push to DYKNA until we have the image and the date sorted. Paging FeralOink and Silver seren again, because I've mentioned them a couple times here and because Seren is particularly well-qualified on working with declared COI editors. Also, really wanting to hear from the WT:DYK watchers about the date request and get some more eyes on it specifically. Vaticidalprophet 01:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed the article to match the hook, since that's what the source says anyways. First vs one of the only is more source semantics likely due to "Afro-Latina" being a term that can be vague enough to make it difficult to determine who counts as first. Anyways, that's done.
User:Silver seren, I have also added the first highlight to the WP:LEAD. I have additionally added the secondary source for this fact that you mentioned on the article talk page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I've also reorganized the sections and reworded the sentence you noted. The sources in high profile news are indeed about that topic, but hopefully my rewording sounds more neutral and less press release-y.
Personally, the date request does seem too specific. We don't really try to run birthday days outside of very high profile people articles, like Presidents of a country. We could maybe try for the week in question instead? SilverserenC 02:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
From experience, that's not always the case. We tend to be pretty lenient when it comes to granting special occasion requests if it's the subject's birthday. That's usually considered sufficiently special. On the other hand, the subject is the writer/nominator's sister, and he requested it run on her birthday, which 1. is not currently in the article, 2. gives me pause, and 3. is beyond the six weeks that we typically grant for special occasions. So if the birthday special occasion request is to be granted, it needs to be discussed first here in the nomination or ideally on WT:DYK where IAR exemptions are usually discussed. To make things clear, I don't really think running this on her birthday would be a good idea given the circumstances, and if consensus if that the article passes its DYK review, I would rather it run as a regular hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You know what? Alright. I've been thinking about this for days, and I don't see any meaningful chance at this point this can run. This is...a soft reject, I guess, because this has been spilling across WT:DYK for days, and nothing has resolved at all, and it's clearly going to continue to not resolve, so appeal it there if you want. Do not ping me to the appeal -- I wash my hands of this. I'm tired and I regret trying. Vaticidalprophet 13:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  • @DYK admins: -What are my options? Do objections to my nomination get a clean slate with either a new reviewer or a new lead non-COI nominator (My choice would be User:Silver seren if he would accept that responsibility)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Some thoughts before i head to bed:
      1. The thread about this nomination at WT:DYK doesn't come to a clear conclusion. A few people advocated for blocking all forms of COI from DYK, and while not everyone was comfortable with that idea, i saw little to no articulation of a clear compromise vision that could be implemented as a general case guideline.
      2. That said, there was a lot of discomfort with this nomination, albeit pretty vaguely expressed. I don't think any single reviewer here is in a position to provide a stamp without clear consensus for the hook to run.
    • That in mind, I think that we should have people weigh in, in an organized fashion at WT:DYK, on whether and how this nomination can proceed. After that, DYK can try and come to grips with a general solution. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Thank you for being so open about your COI. I don't mind this article running at DYK, but I am not convinced by the hook. It sounds wrong as it stands (there are probably earlier examples somewhere in the Americas). She might be the first in the US, but the sourcing for that is weak. (It is in sources about her, not in sources about the ethnicity of CEOs of publicly traded companies). The date request seems harmless, but will be meaningless for anyone but those who know her birthday. If someone proposes an acceptable new hook (indeed it would be preferable if that someone is not you) I think the article could be featured at DYK. —Kusma (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
    • With all respect to Tony, and echo others that it's good the COI was declared, but per Vaticidalprophet's soft reject above, I don't think this can run. There's a lot of sentiment at the WT:DYK thread that things have not been handled very well, particularly with regard to the image issue given a prior topic ban. Better to draw a line under it and move on. FWIW I don't think anyone should be nominating COI articles at DYK. It's very debatable if this article should even have been written by Tony in the first place - WP:COI says among other things that "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia" and "If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly"... advice not quite as strong as a guideline, but still...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
      • I agree that the image issue is not a good look, and would recommend that if this runs at all, it runs without an image. —Kusma (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I was pinged by Vaticidalprophet on the talk page and mentioned as the other non-involved editor of the article here on the DYK nomination. The changes to section headings (making them subheadings) and removal of some extraneous material in the article by Seren and others looks good to me. As I stated on the article talk page here, I don't feel comfortable with the COI issues to participate further on this DYK or contribute further to the BLP article at this time. The most recent mainspace article edits were Tony's here and also here. I have worked with COI editors about a dozen times, and they never made direct changes to articles. (I provided an example on the talk page of the BLP about how I work with COI editors but it didn't have any impact.) I have no problem with confrontations with Wikipedia editors, but as I said here, it feels too awkward for me to be argumentative with Tony about his close family members.
  • Secondly, and I am surprised that I feel so strongly, but it hurts my feelings that at the beginning of this page [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Carla_Vernón Tony TT said]:

"User:Narutolovehinata5, as I have noted, I was forced to step aside until the article got into main space. The article entered main space with many inaccuracies. Given that after 7 months in someone elses hands the article emerged in a poor state, I don't trust that a DYK nom would be handled any better than the AFC nom was. Sometimes if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself and I will be editing with my COI hat on for my sister's article."

  • The article did NOT have "many inaccuracies" when it entered main space! It was not in a "poor state" when it emerged from my hands! I spent a lot of time editing the article, including getting paywall access to publications. Also, I listened to a 90 minute interview (yes, that's an hour and 30 minutes) with multiple re-windings to compare the audio with the transcript, because Tony said his sister never danced professionally but the transcript of the audio said she did! Also, there were no "made up content elements" inserted by me in the article! I spent many hours on this BLP and that of the The Honest Company. It was necessary to update and in some cases correct business content in the Honest company article, in order to ensure consistency between it and the BLP. I am meticulous about details regarding business, finance, economics, and BLP continuity because those are areas that I know very well. I have found the experience of going back and forth repeatedly about the pizza slice pic to be exhausting. I'm not picking on you in particular, Tony. The issue just got bigger and bigger, what with the expired topic ban, and then discussion of the quite topical matter of an editor being directly involved in having his own image appear in Wikipedia main space. Wikipedia DOES have a lot of influence online.--FeralOink (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    • I am sorry to deride the quality of your work. When I first saw the article, it had some inaccuracies that were annoying. For starters, it had her career in a jumbled order and declared her to be a former professional dancer. In addition, it understated her primacy as an Afro-Latina CEO. I do appreciate the effort at getting the article into main space.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I recommend that the DYK nomination be postponed as it feels rushed at the moment. There is always next year (October 2024) if Tony or other editors really want the DYK to appear on Carla's birthday. Alternatively, maybe let some time pass, perhaps a few months, allowing for an acceptable infobox photo to be included in a few weeks, and maybe some additional content or contributions from other uninvolved, neutral editors.--FeralOink (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
    • You can't just wait for DYK noms. You can only nominate them within 7 days of being newly minted in one of several forms. Moving from AFC to mainspace is one form of newly minting the article. The article was moved to mainspace on August 22. I noticed it on August 27 and only had 2 days to pursue a DYK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I ALSO suggest that Tony not get aggravated by all this drama which is difficult because I know that he is proud of sister and her accomplishments. This DYK discussion as well as the the article talk page are very, VERY lengthy and repetitive. Archiving some of the talk page discussion will help, after more time goes by. Also, I apologize if I messed up the formatting here. Please don't be angry with me Tony? I am kind of scared of you getting upset with me. I'm sorry.--FeralOink (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
  • @TonyTheTiger: it seems to me that there's a pretty clear consensus against this nomination continuing. We can wait for an uninvolved closer if you want, but it seems easier to just close it now (if you want, I can mark it as withdrawn). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Carla_Vernón&oldid=1176548497"