Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/We Didn’t Start The Fire (Fall Out Boy)

< 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 Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

We Didn’t Start The Fire (Fall Out Boy)

(
)

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 07:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/We Didn’t Start The Fire (Fall Out Boy); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: No - The article fails verification at several points. The sentence In a deviation from the original, Fall Out Boy's updated lyrics abandon chronological ordering, at one point referencing Rodney King next to deepfakes is cited to a source that describes neither Rodney King nor Deepfakes, while the sentence Wentz cites the event's ubiquity and the need for rhyme space for Bush v. Gore in explaining why it was not included is cited to a source that mentions neither rhyme space nor the COVID-19 pandemic. The article also relies somewhat heavily on sources from Stereogum, which isn't at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources but appears to be a group blog (albeit one that seems to be better established than most group blogs so I'm unsure of its reliability for music reviews).
  • Neutral: No - Per WP:SUBSTANTIATE, Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. The example given is that of John Doe is the best baseball player, and the way that in-text attribution would work would be to specifically attribute the claim to the sources that say it. The article currently does not do that sufficiently (it handwaves, saying "The release of the song led to lines in news media such as"..., but this isn't sufficient attribution per WP:INTEXT).
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Yes
  • Other problems: No - Per WP:INTEXT, [i]n-text attribution should be used with direct speech. More or less the entire critical response section does not use proper in-text attribution; it quotes from numerous stories and organizations without naming a single one.
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article needs substantial revision to align with core content policies before this can be run at DYK. Separately, while irrelevant to DYK, I'm somewhat concerned about whether this warrants a standalone article in light of WP:NSONG. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  • @Red-tailed hawk: Lotta issues, but it's a small article, lemme take a whack at it and get back to you. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 15:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @Red-tailed hawk: Allll righty. So I've fixed the sourcing (too many tabs open, got the cites mixed up), but I think the article is okay with respect to NPOV. WP:INTEXT's fourth example pretty clearly spells out that in-text doesn't require cluttering each and every quote with name and organization (and it doesn't require naming the researchers, only that the truth didn't come down from the clear blue sky). These statements certainly aren't in wikivoice, which is what that policy was intended to address – the first and second examples aren't relevant because the names of the people making these statements aren't more relevant than simply being members of the press. I would count Stereogum as reliable per WP:USEBYOTHERS. As for NSONG, Notable covers can have a standalone article provided it can be a reasonably-detailed article based on facts independent of the original., and I would imagine it a disservice to merge this article back to its target. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
    The fourth example in WP:INTEXT (i.e. the one about the tissue) is about a claim of fact; we don't need to attribute factual claims (such as the existence of a piece of tissue) to a particular journal article when we can simply use a citation. That's different than a claim of opinion, which statements like Move over, Gal Gadot's 'Imagine'! are. A specific person wrote that, believes it, and published it as their opinion; that is something we should use attribution for. The first example seems much more applicable, and the guidance that In-text attribution should be used with direct speech is directly applicable to this case, as such quotes are forms of direct speech. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Red-tailed hawk: Okay, seems pretty reasonable. Intext added :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for making the changes. Nihil obstat. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/We_Didn’t_Start_The_Fire_(Fall_Out_Boy)&oldid=1162768837"