- 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) 06:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Photo Ark
edit- ... that in May 2018, the 8,000th animal photograph was taken for the Photo Ark project, which has the goal of documenting all 12,000 species living in zoos and wildlife sanctuaries around the globe? Source:https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/05/pyrenean-desman-photo-ark-joel-sartore-animals-spd/
Created by Rp2006 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC).
Date, length and hook all OK. QPQ not needed as this is the last of the nominator's free credits. No close paraphrasing. Good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but I think there is too much non-free text in this article. Yoninah (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Please explain what you mean, and how it gets corrected. I have not come across this phrase anywhere, including reading the DYK guidelines! RobP (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm referring to the three long blockquotes of copied text. Usually we print a line or two of reaction or reviews. The press release copy should be the first to go; it's too self-promotional. Yoninah (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I cut them all down. RobP (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Rp2006: Thank you! That's much better. Now that I can "see" the article, I'd like to note that it is largely self-promotion. I counted about 1600 characters of expository prose, but the rest of the article is basically self-promotional statements and reviews. The article doesn't seem complete per Rule D7. It would be great if you could add a "Production" section or the like to actually describe the inception and development of the project, how Joel Sartore is doing the photography and any difficulties he's had, etc. There must be more information in all those books and the PBS miniseries. Yoninah (talk) 10:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I cut them all down. RobP (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Please explain what you mean, and how it gets corrected. I have not come across this phrase anywhere, including reading the DYK guidelines! RobP (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: OK. I added what I could find regarding inception of the project, and also added some other material I came across. With all the extra work you had me do I may now nominate it for a GA. RobP (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Rp2006: Thank you for putting in the extra work. I'm just wondering, though, if your background is magazine writing? The new sections are so chatty. Rather than discuss the project through the quotes of the individuals involved, why aren't you writing it out in prose, like an encyclopedia entry? Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I guess I think the style I write in (through the quotes of the individuals involved) is more interesting to read. And I would dispute that "writing it out in prose" is standard for WP. I see plenty of articles with quotes like this. Plus I think paraphrasing what someone says often introduces unnecessary errors in interpretation. Totally at random, I just checked Carl Sagan (a former Featured article), and it is full of such quotes, from Sagan as well as from others. And BTW, I just started writing for a magazine! You must be psychic. :-) So are we good to go now for the DYK? RobP (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I just don't agree with you. The quotes are simply mindless; they don't advance the topic at all. I won't insult you by editing out all these silly quotes, like "I will be greatly relieved when all this is done, but I figure another 15 years or so, that's what it's going to take. No matter what, I'm going to get it done if I can still do it, if I can still walk and talk and shoot". I'd rather you do it. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I guess I think the style I write in (through the quotes of the individuals involved) is more interesting to read. And I would dispute that "writing it out in prose" is standard for WP. I see plenty of articles with quotes like this. Plus I think paraphrasing what someone says often introduces unnecessary errors in interpretation. Totally at random, I just checked Carl Sagan (a former Featured article), and it is full of such quotes, from Sagan as well as from others. And BTW, I just started writing for a magazine! You must be psychic. :-) So are we good to go now for the DYK? RobP (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah:Seems to me one man's "silly" is another's "poignant". The statement is pertinent, so if I were to edit it, I would just paraphrase it, not delete it. So the "silly" (in your opinion) sentiment of Sartore would remain. I did paraphrase some quotes yesterday, but it seems no matter what I do at your request - despite it being above and beyond the DYK review criteria - you move the goal post. Per above right on this page, the DYK criteria should only be:
- New
- Long enough
- Within policy "meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral, cites sources with inline citations, is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism"
- Hook
- Other (QPQ and Image)
In my opinion, having been through several reviews of both types, you are treating this as if it were a GA review. Can I get another opinion on if this article is DYK worthy? RobP (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Please be aware that "behind the scenes", at DYK talk and at WP:ERRORS, editors are always looking for pages that are not main page-worthy, even if they satisfy the basic DYK criteria. I'm sorry you feel I "keep moving the goal posts". I said from the very beginning that this article is too self-promotional, and putting in long, press-release style quotes is only making it worse. Calling on new reviewer. Yoninah (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Article does still seem to have a somewhat promotional tone. It now mostly uses quotes, but it seems to be a bit too reliant on them. More original prose here would be nice. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Part of your comment seems self-contradictory, and I do not understand. Please rephrase this: "It now mostly uses quotes, but it seems to be a bit too reliant on them" RobP (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was mistaken. What I meant to say what the article at first glance seemed to have been mostly composed of quotes by people involved with its production. In any case, my concern at the moment is that, perhaps the "Endangered Species Day" section can be rephrased further? It still sounds pretty promotional in tone. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Done. How is that? RobP (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Can this be processed now? RobP (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see anymore problems, this should be good to go. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Can this be processed now? RobP (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Done. How is that? RobP (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was mistaken. What I meant to say what the article at first glance seemed to have been mostly composed of quotes by people involved with its production. In any case, my concern at the moment is that, perhaps the "Endangered Species Day" section can be rephrased further? It still sounds pretty promotional in tone. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Part of your comment seems self-contradictory, and I do not understand. Please rephrase this: "It now mostly uses quotes, but it seems to be a bit too reliant on them" RobP (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)