Template:Did you know nominations/Illinois Confederation

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 Amkgp (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Illinois Confederation

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Illinois Confederation, although composed of 12–13 tribes, was not by textbook definition an actual confederation?
  • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created/expanded by Gloriasiyoungkoo (talk). Self-nominated at 00:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - Non-reliable sources are used such as https://www.legendsofamerica.com/ http://www.tolatsga.org/ill.html and http://chicagocityofbigshoulders.blogspot.com/ There is a serious failed verification issue. I checked just one paragraph starting with "French missionaries and explorers" and found that almost none of it was supported by the cited source. You also need to cite a source at the end of each paragraph as a minimum DYK requirement
• Neutral: - Not evaluated
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - There is some plagiarism in the article according to Earwig[1] but it might also be backwards copy?

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - Needs a more engaging hook

QPQ:
Overall: (t · c) buidhe 10:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• buidhe, I'm wondering why you say this is not expanded sufficiently. In the edit immediately prior to the day of expansion, October 25, the article had 3786 prose characters, which would require a minimum post-expansion length of 18,930, while the current length is 19,592, clearly over that length. The article is less than an hour late to meet the seven-day requirement, which I think is certainly allowable given that this is a first-time nomination by a new Wikipedian who has expanded the article as part of an online WikiEd course and may not be used to our pegging things to UTC. Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed), in the hopes that he can work with the nominator; buidhe, perhaps you can do a more complete review so we know where this stands and what the nominator has to work with. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• I would certainly be willing to waive that for a first-time editor, and I removed the POV tag since there doesn't seem to be an ongoing dispute with the current version of the article. However, the sourcing issues with this article are very serious. (t · c) buidhe 02:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset and Buidhe: I emailed the instructor and asked them to nudge the student, who may not have seen the message on their talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• BlueMoonset, Buidhe re-pinging, because I messed up the last edit. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note that another editor has removed a section on language and with it 1002 prose characters, bringing the article down to 18,590 prose characters, which is 340 prose characters short of a 5x expansion. In addition, there is now a "failed verification" template on top of the sourcing issues buidhe noted. Ian (Wiki Ed), it's been over two weeks without the issues being addressed, so the nudge doesn't seem to have worked. How long do you think we should give before closing out this nomination, assuming we haven't passed that point already? BlueMoonset (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: It's probably best to close it at this point. Thanks for your willingness to work with these students. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Closing per above; nominator has still not responded and is unlikely to. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• buidhe, it looks like the author got the length back above 5x, and has added sourcing, including regarding the "failed verification" one. Can you please check to see whether the sourcing issues remain? If so, by all means restore the "X" icon; if not, or if they're very close to being resolved, would you mind continuing the review? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• While there have definitely been considerable improvements, some of the article still relies on random websites that don't look reliable: http://rfester.tripod.com/ http://chicagocityofbigshoulders.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-illinois-confederation-illini.html https://www.legendsofamerica.com/illinois-tribe/#:~:text=Today,%20many%20descendants%20of%20the,Peoria%20Tribe%20of%20Miami,%20Oklahoma. http://www.native-languages.org/miami-illinois.htm etc. (t · c) buidhe 07:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed) again, since the editor did address some issues, though there are still sourcing concerns. Should we leave it open for further improvement, or do you still believe that it's best to close the nomination? Thanks for returning to let us know. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding: this will need another hook as well. If this continues, can you suggest one? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Note: Nominator is a WikiEd student editor for the Fall 2020 term at Vanderbilt University. (course link) The course ends on December 12, 2020. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• There has been no attempt to address the sourcing concerns, no new hook has been proposed, and the class has ended. Marking again for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)