- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Harry D. Boivin
edit- ... that Harry D. Boivin, a Democrat, was elected Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives at the age of 33 and was later elected President of the Oregon State Senate twice with the help of Republican senators?
Created/expanded by Orygun (talk). Self nom at 01:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
| Format | Citation | Neutrality | Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crisco 1492 (talk) | Crisco 1492 (talk) | Crisco 1492 (talk) |
| Length | Newness | Adequate citations |
Formatted citations |
Reliable sources |
Neutrality | Plagiarism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crisco 1492 (talk) | Crisco 1492 (talk) | Crisco 1492 (talk) | Crisco 1492 (talk) | Crisco 1492 (talk) | Seems fine Crisco 1492 (talk) |
Not yet. The role of the Republicans in him being elected the President of the Oregon State Senate is not stated explicitly in the article, and the references should be next to the sentences they support and not at the back of the paragraphs (to avoid unverifiable information being slipped in unnoticed). Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Nominator also needs to do a QPQ. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- In para 5 of ref 7 (Eugene Register-Guard article dated 19 May 99) it says: “Boivin helped stich together a coalition of conservative Democrats and Republicans that ran the Senate for several years. The deal was simple: A conservative Democrat would be President of the Senate and Republicans would hold chairmanships of most of the major committees.” While not a direct quote, I think this is pretty good support for hook statement about Boivin being elected President of the Senate with help of Republicans. However, if you don’t think this is adequate, how about alternative hook:
- ... that Harry D. Boivin was elected Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives at the age of 33 and was later elected President of the Oregon State Senate twice?
- Also, am not familar with "QPQ"...can you tell me waht it means?--Orygun (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- The coalition detail doesn't really emphasize their contributions, and for all the reader knows there may only be a few Republicans. The QPQ is the review, which has been required for all self noms by DYK regulars for a couple of years (you have 50 DYKs [at least], so you should do one) Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also, am not familar with "QPQ"...can you tell me waht it means?--Orygun (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sources or not, the hook is too complex to be effective. I lean toward the following simpler version, which I believe is fully supported by the first reference cited at the end of the paragraph:
- ALT2 ... that Harry D. Boivin, a Democrat, was elected Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives at the age of 33, becoming the youngest person to hold that office in the state's history?
- As for the "quid pro quo" (QPQ) review: If you nominate an article you created/expanded at DYK and you have more than 5 DYKs under your belt, you are supposed to review somebody else's nomination. This rule has not existed nearly as long as Crisco suggests -- it was implemented less than a year ago for several purposes, including spreading out the DYK workload and helping DYK's "frequent flyers" become more effective participants by giving them a better understanding of the review process. Since that time, DYK has been through a series of upheavals reminiscent of the French Revolution, so the current review process has little resemblance to what it was when the rule was established. Regardless, as a DYK veteran, you should be well-equipped to try your hand at reviewing another nomination. --Orlady (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Darn, seems I misremembered the comments I had seen. Was it implemented after the October fiasco, or...? Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I can't recall for sure what specific event(s) may have precipitated QPQ. I try not to live at Wikipedia, so I tend not to track time by Wikipedia crises and "fiascoes" -- this place can be a regular soap opera. However, the discussion that led up to QPQ mostly occurred in November 2010 (see discussion archives 61 and 62), I think it was implemented circa January 1, 2011, and it was added to the "Rules" page on February 1, 2011. IMO, it is still something of an experiment, and if it hadn't been for the new "crises" and "fiascoes" generated in recent months, I think the QPQ process likely would have been re-evaluated and modified over the past couple of months (instead of overlaying new untested procedures and processes). One significant concern that precipitated QPQ was a chronic backlog of hooks awaiting review, coupled with a long-standing perception that a few certain submitters (such as Billy Hathorn) were prolific self-nominators who never contributed to reviews -- and whose articles and hooks often were sub-par. --Orlady (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- So QPQ rule says that self-nominators must review other DYK articles...right? Is specific requirement 1 review for every self-nomination? All I really want to do is write good "B" quality articles. I put lot of time into each articles and DYK is opportunity to generate some readership to make that work worthwhile. In any case, I'll try to comply with DYK rules, but its hard to keep up with all the DYK input format chgs, check boxes, and new rules. Where do I go to find out how to do review.--Orygun (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- We all feel your pain, Orygun. DYK has become chaotic lately due to invented crises, followed by rapid imposition of new untested procedures intended to address the crisis du jour. The Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide hasn't been revised to reflect the current template-based review procedure, but the general concepts are still valid. The general idea is to check to see if the article qualifies for DYK on length and newness, see if it is adequately referenced and doesn't cite bare URLs, check to see that the article isn't plagiarized (including an absence of WP:Close paraphrasing), check to see if the hook fact(s) is(are) in the article and properly supported by citation(s) to reliable sources that support(s) the hook fact(s), and check the hook for length, format, and "interest." That sounds like a lot, but it's usually easier than it sounds -- and the general idea is to dip your toe into the water by helping with reviews. I've found that reviewing DYKs (over the years I've done a lot more DYK reviews than I have DYK credits) is often interesting, and it gives me new insight into writing articles and DYK hooks.
The template process isn't real popular (see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Getting rid of the checklists?), so you'll have plenty of company if you have difficulty using it. The main idea of the template is that if an item (such as article length) is OK, you enter your signature into that field of the template by inserting 3 tildes.
I'm glad you are still contributing at DYK; a lot of long-time regulars have been driven away by the turmoil. --Orlady (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- We all feel your pain, Orygun. DYK has become chaotic lately due to invented crises, followed by rapid imposition of new untested procedures intended to address the crisis du jour. The Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide hasn't been revised to reflect the current template-based review procedure, but the general concepts are still valid. The general idea is to check to see if the article qualifies for DYK on length and newness, see if it is adequately referenced and doesn't cite bare URLs, check to see that the article isn't plagiarized (including an absence of WP:Close paraphrasing), check to see if the hook fact(s) is(are) in the article and properly supported by citation(s) to reliable sources that support(s) the hook fact(s), and check the hook for length, format, and "interest." That sounds like a lot, but it's usually easier than it sounds -- and the general idea is to dip your toe into the water by helping with reviews. I've found that reviewing DYKs (over the years I've done a lot more DYK reviews than I have DYK credits) is often interesting, and it gives me new insight into writing articles and DYK hooks.
- To answer the other question, it is generally accepted 1 article nominated = 1 article reviewed, although some go hook for hook. If you are uncertain where to begin, you could consider starting with reviews of trusted contributors (admins, long-time editors etc.) Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Reviewed 30 Sep DYK nomination for SS Robert E. Peary. Also, ALT2 now has in-line citation.--Orygun (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
