- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Scyller Borglum
... that Scyller Borglum has five college degrees?"Borglum courts 'exhausted middle' of GOP | Local". rapidcityjournal.com. 2019-07-28. Retrieved 2019-08-16.{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=(help)- ALT1:... that Scyller Borglum and a deceased candidate both won the same election? "Deceased Rapid City lawmaker won Tuesday's primary election, now what?". Argusleader.com. Retrieved 2019-08-16.
- Reviewed:
IOUTemplate:Did you know nominations/Andrei Volozhinsky
- Reviewed:
5x expanded by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 16:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC).
- Comment: I love ALT 1; I appreciate the work; but do you really think it should count as 5× expansion if you delete 11k characters of content and then bounce it back up to not even 2k? — LlywelynII 19:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- LlywelynII, oh poop, I forgot that the supplemental rules might invalidate this nomination because that COI version counts, even though it so badly doesn't conform to policies. Someone expanded it badly, so I expanded it in line with policy. To answer your question, I can see it both ways. It's less than it was after the bad editing, but it is 5x more than the previous version, when I created it as a microstub. WP:IAR can apply, but it's up to you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Dunno. It was just something I noticed. I'd say it's worthwhile explaining on the talk page why that other version was so awful, but since it was just a comment it's really up to your formal reviewer whether to ignore that or not. — LlywelynII 20:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, I see that Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Supplementary_guidelines#Supplementary_article_length_rules does exclude copyvio. I don't know how to find the revision number in order to check for copyvio in the edit you deleted - the edit summary for that says "using media interviews, biographical data, her resume and personal discussions", so it might be worth checking if you know how to do it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- RebeccaGreen, great point. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be copyvio. Best I can say is that the article was a superstub in early August and was expanded more than five-fold, though it is smaller than the bad version. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Muboshgu, what a pity! And what a pity that the supplementary rule doesn't exclude COI, unsourced, non-encylopaedic content! Or, that someone other than you reverted that edit :-( I am new to DYK, so I don't want to make a call on this. I would be inclined to ignore the bad edit, as if it hadn't been made, and quickly reverted, this would be a 5x expansion.RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Again, though, there's been no explanation here or on the article's talk page about what was "bad" to begin with. Since tons of material has obviously been removed, I've of a mind to simply revert all of these changes to begin with, pending some clarity about what was "bad" in the previous article. — LlywelynII 21:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- LlywelynII, as Rebecca said, COI, unsourced content, and non-encyclopedic content. The "bad version" is a contains POV language like
"Borglum was an achievement-oriented child"
and"Her Senate campaign and the policies that underlie it are based on achievement. Borglum is an engineer and she approaches government as an engineering problem with specific issues that can be resolved."
. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- LlywelynII, I am not sure which changes you're referring to when you talk about reverting them? The edit history of Scyller Borglum shows that a large amount of text was added by an editor who has made no other edits at all, and who left an edit summary saying "Details added to stub at request of Scyller Borglum using media interviews, biographical data, her resume and personal discussions" - clearly COI. Much of it is unsourced, and includes statements like "After high school, Borglum spent two decades compiling a diverse array of college degrees and professional experience"; "Borglum announced at the wedding reception, “My mother told me to finish college before getting married.” " Any other editor who noticed those additions would have reverted them, as Muboshgu did, to the previous version. I have placed a COI tag on the article Talk page. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- My feeling is that the COI material that was in the article for under 48 hours shouldn't be counted in this situation, making this a valid expansion. As I'm just one person, my suggestion would be that you post about this at WT:DYK, to get consensus about whether this should be counted as valid; it's best to have consensus so that if it says the nomination is okay to continue, there won't be a later challenge (or if there is, the consensus will prevail). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging Muboshgu: as this is your nomination, it's up to you to pursue this at WT:DYK. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- LlywelynII, as Rebecca said, COI, unsourced content, and non-encyclopedic content. The "bad version" is a contains POV language like
- Muboshgu, what a pity! And what a pity that the supplementary rule doesn't exclude COI, unsourced, non-encylopaedic content! Or, that someone other than you reverted that edit :-( I am new to DYK, so I don't want to make a call on this. I would be inclined to ignore the bad edit, as if it hadn't been made, and quickly reverted, this would be a 5x expansion.RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, thanks for the ping. I hadn't seen the previous messages. I will pursue. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: I'm ready to review this. Please provide a QPQ. Yoninah (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
