Template:Did you know nominations/Six Months In Sudan
- 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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Six Months In Sudan
... that Canadian doctor James Maskalyk's blog about his work with Doctors without Borders in Sudan was so popular, that he turned it into a book?Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/travel/21armchair.html- ALT1: ... that Canadian doctor James Maskalyk's Six Months In Sudan was based off of his blog?
Created by CT55555 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC).
The article was created on November 30, and as it wasn't expanded 5x during past 7 days, it doesn't meet the DYK criteria. Besides, the hook need to have a link to the article; fair use images are not allowed on the main page; the article is a stub; and article consisnts mainly from quotes from various reviews, and there is almost nothing about the book's backgroud, plot, publication history, etc. So article doesn't meet DYK criteria,Artem.G (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
.
- Hi @Artem.G. I'm new, there's a high risk I'm misunderstood something here. Nonetheless, there seems to be two errors and one impossible catch 22 in what you've said above. Before I mention then, caveats: I'm new, I may be defining "article" and "draft" wrong and I really don't understand the image definitions, forgive me for any errors please.
- But... 1 - this IS a new article, On 30 Nov it was a draft. It became an ARTICLE when it passed AfC process on 14th December. Surely, I could not submit a DYK for an incomplete draft?
- 2 - the article is 10,287 bytes. 7 days ago on he 9th Dec it was 1,662 bytes. In the past 5 days it has indeed expanded significantly more than 5X in length.
- 3 - The guidance for writing articles on books and the infobox template for books prompts for a cover. Now only the publisher or author will hold the copyright for the cover, and they would be prohibited by conflict of interest rules from creating an article, so every article on every book is surely going to have an image uploaded by someone who doesn't have the copyright. Did the rules intend to basically block every article on books from being a DYK? That seems unlikely. CT55555 (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Just leaving my two cents here, but since the article was moved to mainspace on December 14, it is still eligible. The fair use image can't be used however, and it needs to be expanded some. Right now it has a lot of quotes and not much prose, but I will try to work on it. (It already has been improved a lot). Once it's ready, I'll request a second review. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks BuySomeApples Regarding the image (which I uploaded in the past few hours) did I categorise it correctly, i.e. I pulled it off a book selling website. i.e. what should I have done to avoid this scenario? Or is this an inevitable catch 22 if a book is nominated for DYK? CT55555 (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @CT55555: the image is OK to use for the article and you definitely used it correctly. DYK just has a different criteria which is a bit stricter than the rest of Wikipedia. The book cover is copyrighted, and only free images can be used for DYKs. There's not really any getting around this, but it can be approved without an image (most DYKs don't have photos to go with them). BuySomeApples (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks BuySomeApples so maybe we delete the image if it's featured and then add it after? CT55555 (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- @CT55555: The image can stay in the article, it just won't appear on the front page with the DYK hook. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks BuySomeApples so maybe we delete the image if it's featured and then add it after? CT55555 (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @CT55555: the image is OK to use for the article and you definitely used it correctly. DYK just has a different criteria which is a bit stricter than the rest of Wikipedia. The book cover is copyrighted, and only free images can be used for DYKs. There's not really any getting around this, but it can be approved without an image (most DYKs don't have photos to go with them). BuySomeApples (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks BuySomeApples Regarding the image (which I uploaded in the past few hours) did I categorise it correctly, i.e. I pulled it off a book selling website. i.e. what should I have done to avoid this scenario? Or is this an inevitable catch 22 if a book is nominated for DYK? CT55555 (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- Just leaving my two cents here, but since the article was moved to mainspace on December 14, it is still eligible. The fair use image can't be used however, and it needs to be expanded some. Right now it has a lot of quotes and not much prose, but I will try to work on it. (It already has been improved a lot). Once it's ready, I'll request a second review. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- 3 - The guidance for writing articles on books and the infobox template for books prompts for a cover. Now only the publisher or author will hold the copyright for the cover, and they would be prohibited by conflict of interest rules from creating an article, so every article on every book is surely going to have an image uploaded by someone who doesn't have the copyright. Did the rules intend to basically block every article on books from being a DYK? That seems unlikely. CT55555 (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- ok, turns out I was too harsh. let's see some second opinion once the article would be reworked a bit (it's still a stub that consists of a bunch of quotes, the problem I have sometimes with my articles too). Artem.G (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for reconsidering.
I do agree that the article needs work and relies too much on quotes. Upon reflection, I should probably have submitted my article about the author, which is overall more interesting, also new and doesn't have that issue.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Maskalyk CT55555 (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)- @Artem.G I've expanded the plot summary and BuySomeApples has improved the critical reception part (thanks!), so I am optimistic that the article no longer has these flaws. CT55555 (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- I've done some work on the article this morning expanding the plot section, would you consider this addresses your (very valid) concerns? @Artem.G CT55555 (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- I also did some cleaning up on the article to trim down the reception section a bit and remove the overload of quotations. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for reconsidering.
- @CT55555:, sorry, I didn't see your ping somehow. The article seems to be much better now. It's new enough (expanded, to be clearer), all quotes are sourced, hook is interesting and sourced. Sorry that review took so much time, but I think that now it's good to go.
Artem.G (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Artem.G: no problem, thank you for approving and for being open minded about the feedback. You're contributions here have helped us significantly improve the article, so this was a very good process, from my perspective. All the best to you. CT55555 (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- @CT55555: is it in the article that the book came about specifically because of the blog's popularity? If not, I suggest alt1 above (I think it happens to be punchier as well). If it's in the sourcing, but not the article, that should probably be added to the article—if it's in the article and I'm a dingus, do let me know. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- @theleekycauldron Hi you raise a very good point. My source does not say "because" so I could be guilty of assuming correlation (popular blog is written, then makes it a book) means causation. I actually think it makes this clearer in the book itself, but then that's a primary source. So this is maybe a problem and your ALT1 suggestion is a very elegant solution that I support. CT55555 (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron CT55555 Where does this nomination stand? SL93 (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding is that Artem.G approved it, then theleekycauldron made a good observation, created a ALT1, I agreed to it and therefore maybe the next step is for Artem.G to move it to the waiting/staging area? CT55555 (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron CT55555 Where does this nomination stand? SL93 (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- @theleekycauldron Hi you raise a very good point. My source does not say "because" so I could be guilty of assuming correlation (popular blog is written, then makes it a book) means causation. I actually think it makes this clearer in the book itself, but then that's a primary source. So this is maybe a problem and your ALT1 suggestion is a very elegant solution that I support. CT55555 (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- @CT55555: is it in the article that the book came about specifically because of the blog's popularity? If not, I suggest alt1 above (I think it happens to be punchier as well). If it's in the sourcing, but not the article, that should probably be added to the article—if it's in the article and I'm a dingus, do let me know. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Artem.G: no problem, thank you for approving and for being open minded about the feedback. You're contributions here have helped us significantly improve the article, so this was a very good process, from my perspective. All the best to you. CT55555 (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- @CT55555:, sorry, I didn't see your ping somehow. The article seems to be much better now. It's new enough (expanded, to be clearer), all quotes are sourced, hook is interesting and sourced. Sorry that review took so much time, but I think that now it's good to go.
Promoting ALT1 to Prep 2 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)