Template:Did you know nominations/Victoria Bricker
- 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 sst✈ 07:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
ALT1 promoted
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Victoria Bricker
edit- ...
that Victoria Bricker has studied Maya languages, revitalization, astronomy, and ethnobotany?
Created by Keilana (talk). Self-nominated at 05:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC).
Interesting studies, based on few but good sources. "Linguistics" is not yet in the body. "Revitalization is, I followed the link but am still curious, - could you help by saying what it is, perhaps in brackets? I suggest to reorder the subjects to end on ethnobotany, - sounds most interesting of the four. I understand that you intentionally don't link to make people click? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Hi Gerda, sorry I didn't see this until now. I think "linguistics" is implied by her working on a linguistics journal and writing dictionaries and grammars, but I've changed it to "languages" and reordered the hook. Keilana (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I still have the problem not to have the slightest idea (when reading the hook) what revitalization means because it is not noticeably connected to the Mayas, as are the later terms. My kind of hook would be
- ALT1: ... that Victoria Bricker has studied the languages, astronomy, and ethnobotany of the Maya? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: Hi Gerda, sorry I didn't see this until now. I think "linguistics" is implied by her working on a linguistics journal and writing dictionaries and grammars, but I've changed it to "languages" and reordered the hook. Keilana (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Full review needed; previous reviewer has proposed a hook and cannot review it. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree, it's only rewording and dropping one termfor clarity, no new facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Gerda, with all due respect, in the first hook she's studying the Maya plus three other things, and in your ALT1 she's studying three things about the Maya. Those are quite different. As it stands, the article hasn't yet had a full review—nothing about length, newness, and all the rest—and had been waiting for 11 days when I called for a new reviewer. Also, neither of the hooks have the DYK-required citations at the end of the sentences that contain them. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, you misunderstood the ambiguous hook, and I reworded it to prevent others to do the same. Thankyou, Vesuvius Dogg. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I've gone with ALT1 here because I tend to agree with Gerda Arendt's reservations about the word "revitalization", and also that a potential imprecision in the original hook was raised by BlueMoonset; please note that the current sourcing ONLY supports the subject's expertise as related to Maya language, astronomy, and ethnobotany (and not general expertise in those subjects). Article is clean and adequately sourced, neutral, new enough, long enough, and with no apparent copyvio issues. ALT1 hook is short enough and accurately sourced to two inline citations. QPQ done. Unless Keilana has an as-yet-unvoiced objection to Gerda's alternate hook, we should be Good To Go. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
