- 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) 06:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Reggie Parks
- ... that championship belt designer Reggie Parks, whose work was used by WWE, UFC, and Madonna, was the first wrestling opponent of future NWA Worlds Heavyweight Champion Dusty Rhodes? Combination of refs 1, 5 and 6 in the article
- Reviewed: William Utermohlen
Created by Grapple X (talk). Self-nominated at 21:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC).
- Oppose — This is a subject who the real world has viewed as notable for decades. Someone on Wikipedia creates the article out of the blue in response to the news of his death. Par for the course around here, really. Specific to this case: the nominator creates this article, immediately nominates it at ITN/C, then days later nominates it at DYK. However, this is an article that exists as a reaction to someone's death, yet another editor had to add it to Deaths in 2021. This is blatant hat collecting. Why should we reward that? If you're looking for an excuse to ignore that, let's go over the article and nomination. The most obvious problem is the inclusion of a "Life" section, the smallest part of the article body. A biography is intended to tell the story of a person's life as a whole. Professional wrestling biographies already suffer greatly from the POV of a subject's life as a whole serving as a footnote to a whole bunch of topical POV/trivia. This article is nearly as much an article about championship belts, Stu Hart and WWE as it is an article about Reggie Parks. On to the nomination, the hook starts with "that championship belt designer Reggie Parks, whose work was used by WWE, UFC, and Madonna". The lead says the work for Madonna was an album cover. The way the hook is written, readers may be mislead into believing that he designed a belt for Madonna rather than an album cover. The hook in general reads like a series of coatracking mentions of others intended to puff up an article on an obscure subject. The footnote "Combination of refs 1, 5 and 6 in the article" is confusing. Are we supposed to be sourcing the fact about Dusty Rhodes or every single minute fact contained within the hook? Smells of puffery. So does this. There's no reason to use {{Sfn}} when there's only a single book citation in the article. The KISS principle goes a long way. As for the actual mention of Dusty Rhodes, "Joe Blanchard's Texas territory" is confusing to me. Other, more credible sources mention that the booking office for Texas at the time was centered around the Dallas and Houston promotions, which provided talent to local promoters throughout Texas. Therefore, the territory would have been Texas as a whole. Additionally, Blanchard's article states that he was a full-time wrestler until he started promoting in 1978, or a decade later. If your source consisted mostly of Dusty's personal recollections, what sort of editorial or fact-checking process existed prior to publishing? There's no online link provided to that source, so I really don't know. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Appearing on the "recent deaths" ticker has never been sufficient to disqualify a subject from DYK, this isn't abut "rewarding" anything. As to the hook—he did design a belt for Madonna, to wear on the album cover in question; the "refs 1, 5, and 6" part is simply because the hook isn't sourced to any one ref in particular; one of those refs discusses the connection to Rhodes, two details who have used his belt designs. A simpler hook could written, sure, but feel free to propose one in that case. If you wish to contest the Rhodes source; it's available to preview on Google Books, Rhodes himself describes the territory as Blanchard's and I have no reason to question that, but Blanchard's name can be omitted without losing anything. I'm not particularly keen on the tone of this review and the insinuation that it's "hat collecting" (is there some other purpose for DYK other than to ... run hooks?) or that by missing an opportunity to wikilink it on another page I've somehow committed a personal failing; this smacks of assuming bad faith in a run-of-the-mill nomination. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)- Why is it bad that someone creates an article after news of a persons death and then nominate it for ITN or DYN?★Trekker (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Trekker’s implication in their question. There is absolutely nothing wrong creating an article after news of a death and then nominating it to ITN/DYK. “Hat collecting”. What?? It’s one of the most bizarre ‘opposes’ I’ve ever seen. If RadioKAOS believes that the subject has been notable for decades then they should be thanking the creator for rectifying the omission from WP. Editors discovering notable topics from news items and seeing that a valid article is missing is a valuable route for the development of WP. Long may it continue! DeCausa (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
New article is 3,848 characters long and nominated four days after creation. It is eligible for DYK per Rule 1d, because it only appeared in the "Recent Deaths" section of ITN and not as a bold link. No copyvios detected (Newdeaths.com copied off this article and not the other way around; high confidence of violation due to direct quotes that have all been cited) and duplication detector of online sources[1][2][3][4][5][6] reveal no close paraphrasing issues (AGF book which can't go through Dup detector). Article is well-sourced. Hook is 180 characters long (under 200 character max.) and is interesting. Refs 1, 5, and 6 (verifying the hook) are reliable sources. QPQ done. Looks good to go! —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
