- 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) 06:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tatjana Višak
edit- ... that the philosopher Tatjana Višak argues that utilitarians should oppose the killing of animals in agriculture, even if they have lived happy lives?
- Reviewed Bas van Bavel. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Created by J Milburn (talk). Self-nominated at 11:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC).
New enough. Long enough. QPQ done. NPOV. Earwig and dup detector found no close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations or plagiarism. Interesting hook, and whilst it is expresses her view well enough, I'm not sure that that particular aspect/summation of her views is specifically cited in the article at the end of the relevant sentence. All paras cited. Edwardx (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Edwardx: Sorry, could you be a bit clearer on what you're after here? The hook is basically a summary of the "research" section, which is sourced to two third-party articles. (Thanks for the review!) Josh Milburn (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Edwardx: Ping- I'm wondering what specific sentence you feel needs to be better referenced? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay, Josh Milburn. On considered reflection, the hook is well enough referenced. Good to go. Edwardx (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Edwardx: Many thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
