Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Jennie Scott Griffiths

< 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 RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Jennie Scott Griffiths

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by SusunW (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 23:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - maybe?
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Well, since the DYK the article has already passed a GA review, which significantly simplifies my work as a reviewer. Technically the Headbomb script flags a few sources (familysearch.org) as unreliable, but I find the article information sourced to them (name of her parents etc.) as not exactly vital to the article, and the info is sometimes even duplicated in a reliable source. So even if there is the possibility of some slight error there, it would not endanger the article accuracy in any significant way.

I rather have some issue with the hooks: ALT0 is pretty boring. A lot of people were likely born in log cabins, but we need to know why we should read about this particular woman! Maybe amend it with some info about her achievements, so that it becomes the "from humble origins" story the hook likely intended to tell. ALT1 is better, but I think it would still benefit from some short mention of her occupation. However, if you'd rather keep it as-is, I would approve ALT1, but not ALT0. –LordPeterII (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment, "the Headbomb script flags a few sources as unreliable" in error. Primary sources are not necessarily unreliable. There is a vast difference in promotional materials, non-curated publishings, or material written by the subject and, as in this case, documents created by government entities to verify an event. A government employee is not likely to have fabricated official legal records, although they might contain errors (just like secondary sources do). Whenever one is writing an article, one must do due diligence to ensure that the source is speaking of the subject and not some other person with the same name. In this case, secondary sourcing confirms places and some names and each WP:primary source used meets our guidelines for limited use, was created by a government entity, and anyone with access can verify that they confirm the people listed. Limited use to confirm details but not notability is acceptable per our guidelines. IMO, for the ALT1 hook, her occupation doesn't create added interest and may have the opposite effect. Leaving it out makes one read the article to see why her papers would be in Australia. Adding it, the reader is likely to think, she was simply another international journalist, but I've added it per your request. SusunW (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I also want to thank you, @Onegreatjoke and LordPeterII: for recently nominating articles I have worked on for DYK. I find the process somewhat daunting and have really missed Yoninah's hand in promoting articles for me. I truly appreciate that you took the time to nominate them and work to get them on the front page. SusunW (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@SusunW: You are right, the sources are likely not unreliable. But I didn't really meant to imply that there was an issue; it just always pops out to me visually when something is marked in red by the script. And to be fair to Headbomb, he has a big disclaimer up that explains that the bot can't "think", and even if something is flagged, an editor has to check whether or not something needs to be done.
As for the hooks, I actually agree with you about ALT1, and have gone ahead and removed the occupation from it. It reads more "hooky" without. Unless you or @Onegreatjoke have any ideas for ALT0, which by comparison is rather weak, I would simply strike that one and approve ALT1. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
LordPeterII I get it, and Headbomb does really good work, but I wish that it showed as yellow instead of red, because there are a lot of editors who see red, assume bad, and start deleting stuff. To my mind, FamilySearch is no different than Google books. You have to use your brain , was it published?, is it independent?, is it promotional?, etc. I thought about hook 0, but wanted to give Onegreatjoke time to respond. It could be more hooky to say that journalist Jennie Scott Griffiths, who wrote for the Fiji Times, was born in a log cabin in Texas or that child prodigy Jennie Scott Griffiths was born in a log cabin, or that Jennie Scott Griffiths, who was born in a log cabin in Texas, protested the draft/conscription for WWI in Australia, etc. SusunW (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@LordPeterII: @SusunW: I know I am the nominator for this but what is the status of this review? Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@Onegreatjoke: Well, I was (too implicitly maybe) asking you about ALT0, since it's currently boring, but has potential if amended. Or if you don't want to amend it, I'll strike it and approve ALT1. Just waiting for your input on the hooks, the article is fine. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
@LordPeterII: I think you should just strike ALT0 honestly. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Sure, then approving ALT1. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Jennie_Scott_Griffiths&oldid=1117303199"