Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Donald Dean Jackson

< 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: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Donald Dean Jackson

(
)

Created by Gwillhickers (talk). Self-nominated at 03:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC).

  • On it. Also restored "that" to the hook and fixed grammar. [OP may want additional links to Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, but I'll leave that to h(im|er).] — LlywelynII 07:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • New enough; long enough (~5k elig. chars. even after removing some duplicate duplication of identical duplicates); WP:BLP not applicable; reasonably well sourced (lack of publication details and needless duplicate citation of published works issues for the article's talk page, not here); numerous typos (fixed); some lingering article issues (the article should be listed at Donald Jackson (disambiguation); most of text in the #Works section belongs in the #Career section; a work labeled important in the #Works lede isn't discussed in the #Works section while an entirely unmentioned work gets the longest subsection in the article; some articles lack their location; some references are badly formatted; &c. &c.) but none of them rise to the level of being a policy/DYK issue and are better addressed on the article's talk page (done); Earwig finds minimal copyvio, with high numbers just from the lists of publications; QPQ done.

    On the other hand, Google snippet absolutely fails to return anything matching "writingest" in the work cited and other combinations of words from the quote also fail to bring up the supposed cite or even relevant page. I don't doubt OP's word and it's possibly just an optical scan record glitch, but it's as good a reason as any to insist on a different hook that's focused on D.D. Jackson himself rather than sth he supposedly said at some point about someone else's work. (The article also previously made it confusing whether Jackson was talking about L'n'C themselves or their entire team, but I rephrased that sentence for better clarity.) Coming up with a better, more relevant hook should also help fix the state of the current #Life/Career section, which is presently just a list of degrees and associations from obituaries/professional overviews rather than a discussion on what the guy did and what his approach to it was. — LlywelynII 09:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your improvements on grammar and your interest. Just a comment about sources. There are many reliable sources that aren't (completely) viewable on line, and in many cases have been allowed per AGF. I own the book and can assure you the hook was covered on p. 218. If we were to rid WP of any source that was not completely viewable, we would have to ignore 1000s of sources and would have to make mass deletions throughout. Having said that, here is another hook, with a source that can be completely read online. Yes, perhaps a hook more focused on Jackson and his efforts is in order. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gwillhickers: That's a great source. I personally think it's more interesting that his journalism background was more important than any background with Washington, but the idea for this hook works. A) You need to use it and cite it in the article, ideally in the #Career section. B) I know it's debatable but I don't really think the source supports the idea that he was/felt unqualified (incapable, insufficiently credentialed, &c.). It was more that he felt unsuitable (or sth similar)—that he could do it but it should go to someone with a more focused Washington background—until they explained what they were actually looking for. — LlywelynII 02:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The source says Jackson "balked" at the idea of taking on the editing job because he felt he lacked the background regarding Washington's life. I suppose there are a number of ways to say he felt that he wasn't qualified. e.g.Unqualified, unsuitable, inexperienced, etc. In any case, I've added content to the section covering this area, cited by the same source. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gwillhickers: Are you sure about that? There are (inexplicably) two separate versions of citation to Ferraro (2018) and neither of them has anything to do with this hook... which (fwiw) still has iffy wording given the source, which doesn't say he felt unqualified at all, as already mentioned. If you can't phrase it better yourself, just use the source's wording—"lacked a suitable background". — LlywelynII 09:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @LlywelynII: The source (Ferraro) says "...initially balked at the offer. He believed that he lacked a suitable background". I didn't want to close paraphrase the passage so I simply said unqualified. It would seem that anyone who lacked the background would be unqualified. It's a more general term, but it's certainly no stretch. I am open to alternatives. What would you suggest? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not to be snide, but I quoted that exact passage in the comment you were ostensibly replying to. The answer to your 'question' is also already answered/dealt with above. The bigger problem remains the lack of any mention of the passage in the article. As also mentioned above. Excelsior! — LlywelynII 19:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: Thanks for your prompt reply. I added the content pertaining to the hook in the article. My apologies for that oversight Here is another alt below. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, don't be mad if some replies take a day or two with timezones and whatnot but luckily I'm up late. This one has the problem that nothing in the article really establishes that he became famous as far as I can see. The fact anyone's talking about him at all means you could use the "known" or "now known" though. — LlywelynII 19:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't know what gave you the impression I was mad. I was hoping you weren't, given my oversight. In any case, we can remove the term "known" if you feel this will create issues or will likely be challenged. I was speaking with Wikpedia's voice on that note, as Jackson is indeed known among Washington scholars and students and others familiar with Washington's history. Your call. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
It's adding the term "known" instead of "famous", since it's not established that he's actually generally famous in the article. In any case, I'll take that change as OK for you and put this to bed.
[As emended] ALT3 G2G. — LlywelynII 02:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Donald_Dean_Jackson&oldid=1019539752"