Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Unidentified decedent

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Fuebaey (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Unidentified decedent

edit
(
)

5x expanded by Gourami Watcher (talk). Self nominated at 17:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC).

  • The 28 December 2014 revision was 2,498 prose bytes; the current revision is 9,697 bytes. It wouldn't count as fivefold. Therefore, I moved the nomination to the "December 25" section. The December 22 revision was 1,396 bytes. The expansion between 22nd and current should be fivefold. Although the expansion started on December 15, I appropriately moved the nomination to a later date. Although it is one day over the seven-day limit, I hope someone treats it as an exception. George Ho (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to let it qualify: it is only one day off, and it was very close to being a 5x expansion starting on the 28th (2,096 prose characters at the end of edits on December 25, which would require an expansion to 10,480 prose characters, only another 783 beyond the current 9,697). However, a QPQ will be required before the review continues, since Gourami Watcher has already used up his five free DYKs. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to give some reviews when I'm free. Just give me a few days :) --GouramiWatcher(?) 04:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The article had the 5x expansion as described above, there are no obvious copyvios reported through Earwig's script and the hook's figure is in several sources. However it says there are around 40,000 unidentified decedents, which may be slightly more or slightly less. I have changed the hook accordingly. Just waiting on the QPQ, then this can go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The issue has been discussed on the talk page of the article - feel free to add your stance. --GouramiWatcher(?) 19:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The QPQ has been attended to. The WP:WORLDVIEW discussion appears to have taken place, but nothing has been changed in the article as a result, which seems to leave the nomination in limbo. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: I just tweaked the article to include more representation of other countries. As far as the term "decedent" being used primarily in the United States, I did not change the word to avoid conflicting with the article title. With the discussion on the talk page regarding this issue, there have not been any ideas to substitute another formal-appearing term.--GouramiWatcher(?) 16:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Gourami Watcher, the edits to the Causes section have unfortunately rendered the sentence about thousands not only incomprehensible in the way it tries to compare the United States and the world, which removes support for the hook, but you've also eliminated the forty thousand number from the article that's absolutely required for the hook. (There's also the "Tthousand" typo.) The article needs more work if you want to retain the above hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, I've changed the article and also added an alternative hook, which I hope would be acceptable. I'd prefer it over the current one, as it does represent a worldwide view. Thanks! ALT 1: ... that there are thousands of unidentified decedents worldwide? --GouramiWatcher(?) 19:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Gourami Watcher, you've taken three U.S.-only sources, and applied them to your changed Causes section's first sentence, which now reads: Tens of thousands of individuals present the problem of being an unidentified decedent worldwide, with "worldwide" the significant addition. The problem is that these sources have no information about the extent of the problem worldwide, just that the U.S. is estimated at approximately 40,000: worldwide it could be hundreds of thousands, not tens. I also think the phrase "individuals present the problem" is odd in this context: they're not individuals at this point since they're dead, and they don't present the problem, they are the problem. So this is an issue not only with the article but with its sourcing, which also means the hook isn't adequately sourced. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, I just restored the part on the US information back to it's original text. The information for the rest of the world was a lot harder to find, so I ended up creating a different sentence. I guess we could probably go back to the original hook. Thanks --GouramiWatcher(?) 01:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Gourami Watcher, you did create a different sentence, but it doesn't really hold up. After you've mentioned 40,000, I was expecting "significant" to refer to at least thousands, but the total at the source is only a couple of hundred, and none of the countries listed have even 100. That's orders of magnitude different, and given my recollection of population, fewer than one person in a million for those countries. I think we're going to need a new reviewer in here, because I don't feel comfortable with the direction this nomination has taken. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to take a fresh look at the nomination, hooks, and the worldwide view. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    The "larger number in the rest of the world" is not corroborated by the fourth source, which is the only to mention worldwide cases. There is indeed a dearth of information about worldwide, though, so maybe approximations aren't the way to go here (could this book help?) The statistic for the US is still correct, so I approve the original given the first two problems can be fixed, and the worldwide figure retooled. 23W 18:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe that phrase was added by a different user or IP address. Should that be changed? Thanks for the book reference as well, as it could definitely come in handy. --GouramiWatcher(?) 01:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Gourami Watcher: Should either be changed or deleted, yes. Though it wouldn't render the hook false, that confusing statistic would probably be confusing to readers looking for it in the article, having it so close. All your changes since look good. 23W 16:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I deleted the "larger" from the phrase so the statement reads "a number [of others remain unidentified] in the rest of the world." Still a vague statement but it's probably the best that could be used with the lack of information on the worldwide stats.--GouramiWatcher(?) 18:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Rephrased the sentence to state "with numerous other cases in the rest of the world". Article should be good to go now. 23W 20:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Unidentified_decedent&oldid=1017703187"