Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Grunwald

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion 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 Miyagawa (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Michael Grunwald

edit
(
)

Created by Christopher Connor (talk). Self nominated at 03:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC).

  • Two issues: 1) some content was moved from another article, per creation note, but the article is barely past stub, at 261 words. I am not sure if it meets size criteria for new articles, but I'd be willing to overlook this if not for 2) neutrality concerns. Both the hook and substantial parts of the article are problematic, drawing attention to a (relatively mild) controversy that the individual has caused. I am not 100% convinced he is even notable, and big part of the presumed notability comes from the possibly-BLP-touching controversy. I think this nom should be reviewed by at least one more experienced reviewer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What is of concern to me is that the article has only two sources. If Christopher Connor can find atleast three more refs, it'd be great, otherwise the article doesn't seem notable enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is long enough with around 1600 characters so meets the 1500 target. You're very mistaken if you think the article's notability rests on the tweet issue. It is clearly notable without it and meets part 3 of WP:AUTHOR. His other book, a redlink, also meets WP:NBOOK [1] [2] [3], further strengthening notability claims. Your claims of POV in the article and hook seem spurious. The hook is simply a statement of fact that has been widely reported. The article covers the issue of the tweets briefly and neutrally, and has been guided by what's been reported many times in reliable sources. There is nothing in the article that doesn't comply with NPOV. I do agree with you that another reviewer is needed. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't see any problems with the sourcing or notability. There are plenty of reliable sources, and notability the author easily passes WP:AUTHOR #3 having been reviewed in the NYT, Economist, NPR, etc etc.. the hook is interesting, well sourced and accurate. The only problem I see is the tweet episode is too briefly mentioned to provide context, but that is just my opinion. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Hook is not good, it is too long and the "in reference to the wikileaks founder" is redundant as he could hardly have been talking abou another Julian Assange, and Assange's name is linked.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It's less than two hundred characters so hook isn't too long. I don't mind one way or another whether whether the hook includes who Assange is. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
      • It's no longer "recently tweeted" :) Personally I think the whole thing has blown over and now somewhat cryptic. To understand this hook you would need a bunch of context like, why are people attacking this guy with a drone is an obvious question.. but it was a satirical comment you'd need to understand the context of who Assange is and that he has detractors and Grunwald is making a jab at him.. none of which is clear from the quote in the hook. In fact it sort of feels like a chance to use the quote to jab Assange a second time. Maybe we should focus on Grunwald's writing career which is really what makes him notable and is not controversial... -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it is germane that the tweet is now a month old: "recently" isn't correct any more; the hook certainly can't be promoted without some sort of revision. Can someone please suggest a new one? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this is ready to go. Did all the usual checks, struck the word "recently" due to the age of the nomination. Full disclosure: Voted Keep in the AFD and made some very minor edits of fact to the article. Don't think that makes me an involved party, but I thought I would mention it. Gamaliel (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Michael_Grunwald&oldid=1022742435"