Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Harley Poe

< 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 18:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Harley Poe

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Suntooooth (talk). Self-nominated at 20:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Harley Poe; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Yes
  • Neutral: Yes
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Yes
  • Other problems: No - I don't think the lead needs to be more than a paragraph, but the "too short" tag seems valid. Can you add another sentence or two?
    TV, film titles and magazines need italics (Rue Morgue, Scary Stories and Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark), while songs need quotes ("The Hearse Song").

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - I'm happy with the first hook, but can we change "are" to "have been described as"? ALT2 is somewhat more surprising but also a bit dubious: it's true the frontman said it in an interview but how seriously to take the claim runs into neutrality issues. (It's described fine in the article as part of a series of claims about where the name comes from.) I find ALT1 less interesting.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Thanks for the interesting article! A couple of tweaks and we're good to go. — Bilorv (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bilorv:
  1. I've expanded the lead and (hopefully) fixed all instances of not having italics - let me know if I need to do anything else about those two issues.
  2. I've changed the first hook as you said.
  3. The dubious nature of ALT2 is why I added the word "possibly", is that not enough to cover the neutrality issue? /gq
Thanks for the review! Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 23:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
ALT0 approved. On ALT2, I think you're damned if you do and damned if you don't: the source doesn't cast aspersions so why should we? On the other hand, it contradicts what the frontman said elsewhere. Exceptional claims need exceptional sources. I'd prefer to avoid the issue entirely. — Bilorv (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough - best to go with ALT0 then I think. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 19:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@Suntooooth and Bilorv: Our article does not mention the "horror-folk genre" which I have never hear of until today. Our article does mention the Folk punk genre. Can we fix or explain this? Also, probably not a DYK concern but we should try to de-orphan a few sentences in the history section. Bruxton (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
@Bruxton: True, I hadn't noticed that until now. Would "murder-folk" be better, since that's mentioned in the musical styles section? (And I'm not sure what you mean by the comment about de-orphaning.) Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Our article and category states that they are Folk punk - I see "murder folk" in a few sources and in the article but I am not sure that is an actual genre - maybe they are pioneering it? It may be alright to use murder folk based on the sources. And sorry for the lack of clarity: an orphan sentence is one that is all alone. If we can connect it to a paragraph that would be ideal. Bruxton (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll change it to "murder folk" because I think it makes the hooks more interesting and it's in sources + the article - if later on people think it would be better to change it to "folk punk", that's fine too. I don't have time at the moment to work on the history section, but it's on my list to improve. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion the sources for "folk" (the subgenre "folk punk") and "horror aspects" could be used to make the simple sum-of-parts expression "horror-folk". However I do not object to "murder-folk" or "folk punk" or any slight variation. — Bilorv (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Unpromoted after (tardily) noticing that the Discography section is seemingly unsourced Suntooooth. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: I've added a citation - I'm aware it probably isn't the highest-quality source, but it's the only one that has everything in one place (AllMusic is missing a lot of the most recent releases). Out of curiosity, though: I very rarely see citations in discography sections, so is that really a dealbreaker? /gq Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 21:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
It is for DYK, unless you have clearly cited the details of the discography elsewhere in the article; it's fresh in my mind because Coco & Clair Clair was pulled up for the same issue at WT:DYK#Template:Did you know nominations/Coco & Clair Clair yesterday. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Suntooooth has now added an inline citation using ref tags (not that I agree that the content was previously unsourced). — Bilorv (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Harley_Poe&oldid=1200081807"