- 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 Theleekycauldron talk 06:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mariesa Crow
- ... that electrical engineering professor Mariesa Crow raises alpacas?
- Source: Packin' the alpacas; Southview alpacas
Created by David Eppstein (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 186 past nominations.
—David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC).
New enough, long enough and neutral. Nothing on Earwig, similarities appear to just be names. Hook is interesting and cited. QPQ has been done. We should be good to go here, nice work David Eppstein. Pahunkat (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)- @David Eppstein and Pahunkat:
I'm concerned that the article largely rests on sources that are not independent of Crow – mainly her universities. Could the article incorporate more independent sources? (also, is there a guideline on university press publications? i feel like there is and i'm forgetting it.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. There is a guideline. The relevant policies and guidelines are WP:V/WP:RS/WP:BLP (which require that everything be reliably sourced but not that sources be independent), WP:PROF (which states that for academics such as Crow, notability rests on certain form of recognition such as her distinguished professor and IEEE Fellow titles rather than on independence of in-depth sourcing, that university sources and the like are totally acceptable for sourcing and verifying career milestones, and that major society announcements of awards are totally acceptable for sourcing and verifying those awards), and the DYK rules (which require that each paragraph and the hook sentence have reliable sources but do not impose an additional requirement of independence on the sourcing). And we do have independent sourcing for the alpaca hook (also two in-depth independent sources for her book, not mentioned in the hook). Re "Could the article incorporate more independent sources?": I used the sources I found. If I had found more sources I would have used them. But I believe that there is nothing inadequate about the sources I used. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: ah, thanks for pointing me there :) i notice that WP:V says
Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
and WP:RS saysArticles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
. Could the article be brought in line with those guidelines? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)- With your strict interpretation that every source must meet every one of these criteria, rather than merely being reliable and reputable, it would only be possible by completely trashing our academic notability guidelines, deleting 90% of our articles on professors leaving pretty much only the publicity-hounds and the dead, and removing any motivation for me personally to contribute to Wikipedia. That is how fundamental this issue is to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's perfectly fine how it is. There is nothing that stops DYKs from being based on primary sources, and many of those have went through without issues. SL93 (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @SL93: primary and non-independent are different – Sammi Brie and Epicgenius articles are nearly entirely primary sources, but they're primary independent sources. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure where this miscommunication happened, but I never said every source need be independent, just that the article should generally be based on independent sources. It looks to me like just under 20% of the article text cites at least one. I might be a hardass for saying that that means the article isn't based on independent sources, but it's a reasonable policy-based objection and I'd be remiss if I didn't bring it up. As to you quitting Wikipedia – I think that'd be a remarkable waste of talent and experience, but it's your decision. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with the sourcing for anything in the article. There is also nothing against DYK rules in anything in the article. It is accurate to the best of my knowledge, based on sources for which there is no reason to doubt reliability, informative, and notable according to our consensus notability guidelines. Beyond that, it has some general interest material making it a valid DYK candidate. The article does not need fixing. It is your attitude that needs fixing. Sourcing that meets your invented requirements does not exist, not merely for this subject but for the vast majority of living subjects meeting our academic notability guidelines, and the usually-mouthed justification for those invented requirements that "otherwise we cannot write a verifiable and sourced article" is obviously false, falsified by the existence of this article. The literalist rule-fanaticism over encyclopedic content that you are pushing here is not the worst thing about Wikipedia (the spammers and partisan edit-warriors come to mind as worse) but it is not a positive thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's perfectly fine how it is. There is nothing that stops DYKs from being based on primary sources, and many of those have went through without issues. SL93 (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- With your strict interpretation that every source must meet every one of these criteria, rather than merely being reliable and reputable, it would only be possible by completely trashing our academic notability guidelines, deleting 90% of our articles on professors leaving pretty much only the publicity-hounds and the dead, and removing any motivation for me personally to contribute to Wikipedia. That is how fundamental this issue is to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @David Eppstein: ah, thanks for pointing me there :) i notice that WP:V says
- Yes. There is a guideline. The relevant policies and guidelines are WP:V/WP:RS/WP:BLP (which require that everything be reliably sourced but not that sources be independent), WP:PROF (which states that for academics such as Crow, notability rests on certain form of recognition such as her distinguished professor and IEEE Fellow titles rather than on independence of in-depth sourcing, that university sources and the like are totally acceptable for sourcing and verifying career milestones, and that major society announcements of awards are totally acceptable for sourcing and verifying those awards), and the DYK rules (which require that each paragraph and the hook sentence have reliable sources but do not impose an additional requirement of independence on the sourcing). And we do have independent sourcing for the alpaca hook (also two in-depth independent sources for her book, not mentioned in the hook). Re "Could the article incorporate more independent sources?": I used the sources I found. If I had found more sources I would have used them. But I believe that there is nothing inadequate about the sources I used. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a bit mystified what the issue is here. WP:PROF lists a number of criteria, any one of which is enough. The subject here meets: "a fellow of a major scholarly society", and in fact gives "Fellow of the IEEE" (which the subject is) as a specific example. They also meet "held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". I'm not necessarily a fan of WP:PROF, but it's clear the subject meets it. RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- i found the guideline I was talking about earlier!! finally! WP:NPROF says
Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details.
Since the 80% of the article that rests on non-independent sources is incredibly bland, it's fine.
- For the record, RoySmith, the problem was that WP:DYKG requires articles to comply with WP:V, and WP:V says that articles should be based on independent sources, and most of the article exclusively cites non-independent sources. Nothing to do with notability. I'm not sure why I had so much difficulty being heard in this conversation, but I'm glad I found the actual answer to my question. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- i found the guideline I was talking about earlier!! finally! WP:NPROF says
