Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Patty Loveless

< 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 SL93 (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Patty Loveless

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by TenPoundHammer (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 18:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC).

  • Article is new (nomination within six days of good article status), clearly long enough, within policy (and furthermore is a good article). Another DYK nomination was reviewed, image requirements not applicable. The hook is of the appropriate length and format. That said, I have a couple of issues. First, the cited source doesn't specifically mention the aneurysm (it notes that Loveless had surgery to fix a "leaky blood vessel" which could be anything -- and it was indeed surgery to fix an aneurysm, we know that, but in my mind a "leaky blood vessel" could be as minor as a laceration). Second, I don't think that the result of a single review in Entertainment Weekly is all that interesting to the general public (although Alanna Nash is a wiki-notable person!) because the important thing, here, what draws people in, is that Patty Loveless had surgery on her frickin' vocal cords -- and continued her music career! For the single hook submitted to DYK, my answer is maybe. However, I would be an immediate fan of a hook that read something like this: "... that Patty Loveless's musical career rebounded after she underwent surgery to repair a blood vessel on her vocal cords?" because it does not depart from the source material and it is more interesting to the potential reader. What are your thoughts? RexSueciae (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
@RexSueciae: I think your proposed hook is fine. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @Onegreatjoke: Yes for ALT1. RexSueciae (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
    • reviewers can't approve the hooks they write; and I would point out that the information that her musical career "rebounded" afterwards isn't in the article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
      • My mistake; however, I would think that the hook is still appropriate on the totality of the circumstances. RexSueciae (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Article is well written and was recently promoted to GA. ALT1 is confirmed and I added the appropriate language in the article. The article is long enough and it is properly referenced. One concern: the Allmusic reference has been used in the article 21 times (not entirely for songs, but also for biographical details) - our list Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources states that "The source is marginally reliable" . The other overused reference is the book Hot Country Songs 1944 to 2017 it was used 29 times. Maybe the 29 references to the book are justified I have not investigated further after seeing the Allmusic reference. Bruxton (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Clarifying the concern. The AllMusic (database) reference is used in the article 21 times and we should replace many of these citations with other WP:RS. Bruxton (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@Bruxton: Honestly, I think I'd be okay with failing this. I don't exactly know how I would differentiate the sources, or at least in a reasonable amount of time, and unless TenPoundHammer changes anything then this nomination is pretty much over for me. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the message @Onegreatjoke: I will get an opinion from @Roy Smith: about this GA/DYK. Also pinging reviewer @RexSueciae: Bruxton (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
accidentally pinged a Roy Smith doppelgänger so here, @RoySmith: Bruxton (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't have a real strong opinion here. In general I'm wary of using a single source so many times, but I'm not sure that's in scope for a DYK review. ALT1 itself looks to be properly backed by a WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • ALT1 Thanks for the opinion @RoySmith: and apologies to the parties involved for holding up the nom. Bruxton (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Patty_Loveless&oldid=1137491205"