- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Widener Library
edit
... that the stacks of Harvard's 3.5-million-volume Widener Library (floorplan pictured) are so labyrinthine that one student "could not enter without feeling that she ought to carry a compass, a sandwich, and a whistle"?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Australian Renewable Energy Agency [Corrected 22:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)]
5x expanded by EEng (talk), Hertz1888 (talk). Nominated by EEng (talk) at 03:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC).
Unfortunately this article does not currently qualify for DYK because it is insufficiently expanded. On April 21st it was 2326 B and today it is 7985 B, an approximately 3.5x expansion. It also has a number of citation needed and clarification needed tags but that looks like the work of an unhelpful contributor. Who would have thought an article about a library would be controversial? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree on the 2326 but where do you get 7985? I get just over 12500 -- footnotes count, do they not? The {{cn}}s are mine -- I figured I might as well keep developing until someone got around to reviewing. I can get rid of them in a day or two. But again, how do you get 7985? EEng (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- It comes from the "Page size" tool on the left side of my screen (I forget where I acquired it) and it does not seem to include the footnotes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Pardon me, but pushing a button on some stupid tool is not a substitute for understanding and applying the rules. Notes are clearly readable prose. EEng (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- EEng, Please open this into an edit window look at the toolbox in the upper right. Do you see DYK Check? That's the standard here on DYK, although others might be using something else. If you add the DYK Check to your skin's .js that puts the DYK Check in your Tools left-hand sidebar. This is how DYK verifies size, expansion, etc. If I pull up the pre-expansion April 21 version of the article, DYK Check tells me it was 2326 characters (0 words) "readable prose size" on that date. The current version of the article is 7961 characters (0 words) "readable prose size" according to that tool. Infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables do no count in size. Footnotes are considered referencing. Eligibility criteria — Maile (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I don't need help figuring out how to use the tool. The question is whether the tool does the right thing. Sorry, but please show me where anything says footnotes are "referencing" -- we're not talking about footnote citations (e.g. "John Author, A Book on a Subject (2004). p.243.") but substantive, readable prose notes that could, if we wanted, be run into the main article, except that it would be an impossible disorganized pile of text that way. Not many articles have such notes, so it's not surprising the tool has trouble understanding this, but we are not slaves to someone's programming shortcuts. EEng (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, it is the tool's design, rather than its precision, that is questionable. Footnotes that (unlike references, infoboxes, etc.) could optionally be incorporated in the text, are very much readable prose. To regard them otherwise penalizes the editor unjustly and deprives the reader of contact with worthy articles. The tool needs redesign; in the meantime human override (as opposed to slavish reliance on the current algorhythm) can suffice. Please apply intelligent human override. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I don't need help figuring out how to use the tool. The question is whether the tool does the right thing. Sorry, but please show me where anything says footnotes are "referencing" -- we're not talking about footnote citations (e.g. "John Author, A Book on a Subject (2004). p.243.") but substantive, readable prose notes that could, if we wanted, be run into the main article, except that it would be an impossible disorganized pile of text that way. Not many articles have such notes, so it's not surprising the tool has trouble understanding this, but we are not slaves to someone's programming shortcuts. EEng (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- EEng, Please open this into an edit window look at the toolbox in the upper right. Do you see DYK Check? That's the standard here on DYK, although others might be using something else. If you add the DYK Check to your skin's .js that puts the DYK Check in your Tools left-hand sidebar. This is how DYK verifies size, expansion, etc. If I pull up the pre-expansion April 21 version of the article, DYK Check tells me it was 2326 characters (0 words) "readable prose size" on that date. The current version of the article is 7961 characters (0 words) "readable prose size" according to that tool. Infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables do no count in size. Footnotes are considered referencing. Eligibility criteria — Maile (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Pardon me, but pushing a button on some stupid tool is not a substitute for understanding and applying the rules. Notes are clearly readable prose. EEng (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- It comes from the "Page size" tool on the left side of my screen (I forget where I acquired it) and it does not seem to include the footnotes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree on the 2326 but where do you get 7985? I get just over 12500 -- footnotes count, do they not? The {{cn}}s are mine -- I figured I might as well keep developing until someone got around to reviewing. I can get rid of them in a day or two. But again, how do you get 7985? EEng (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Experienced DYK editor requested in regards to the footnote issue. Per D3 and D6, needing to be fixed - bare URLs in the references; many inline dispute tags for "citation needed" and "better source needed" in the body of the article and in the footnotes. This article otherwise has not yet had a basic review. — Maile (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Although WP:DYKSG does not explicitly mention explanatory footnotes, they are essentially the same class as that which are explicitly excluded. The reader does not need to read the footnotes to understand the article; hence why they are footnotes. The prose of the article is the prose of the article itself, and not additions. Unless a proper 5X expansion can be given, this should be failed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The rules say nothing about what the reader "needs to read to understand the article" -- you're just making that up. As to notes being "essentially the same class as that which are explicitly excluded", here's what's explicitly excluded:
- Prose character count excludes wiki markup, templates, lists, tables, and references (WP:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria)
- block quotes, headers, images and captions, the "See also" section if any, the references section, Table of Contents, edit buttons and all superscript like [6] and [citation needed]. (WP:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Supplementary_article_length_rules)
- In what way is a note reading
- Sources conflict as to whether the building's style is "Beaux-Arts", "Georgian", 'Hellenistic", or "the austere, formalistic Imperial [or 'Imperial and Classical'] style displayed in the Law School's Langdell Hall and the Medical School quadrangle".
- anything like "wiki markup, templates, lists, tables, or references" or "block quotes, headers, images and captions, the 'See also' section, the references section"? Prose is prose.
- EEng (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is extrinsic to the core content of an article (like references and tables) and set aside in a special section which many will overlook (like references). You've already had two reviewers opine that the footnotes do not count, and I doubt there will be many who will support your position. If you want, you can bring this to WT:DYK, or you can expand the article proper. If this is found to not be enough expansion, then this article will be failed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Extrinsic to the core content" -- something else you've just made up. Nonetheless I have better things to do than fight the usual DYK mindlessness. I have therefore run all the notes into the main text. It doesn't read very well, but hey, DYK only counts characters -- article quality doesn't count. Now push your mindless button on your mindless character-counting tool. Let me know when you've done that. EEng (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- First of all, something does not have to be explicitly in the rules for it to be used to disqualify an article from DYK. See WP:DYKSG D13, " To some extent, DYK approval is a subjective process. No amount of studying rules, almost-rules, and precedents will guarantee approval, nor will violating any rule guarantee disapproval. Just because an unfamiliar criterion is not listed does not mean a nomination cannot be disqualified. The subjective decision might depend on an attempt to circumvent the details of the rules, especially if the attempt does not address the underlying purpose of improving the hook and article."
- When something is not explicitly in the rules, on Wikipedia one relies on consensus (i.e. per WP:CONSENSUS). By default, this means arguing points and counterpoints in a discussion. You clearly disagree with the judgment I and Cwmhiraeth have given here, hence why I have invited you to bring this to WT:DYK to obtain a wider consensus. Insulting my writing is not going to change my position, nor is implicitly comparing me to a drone.
- That being said, even with the footnotes added into the article proper, this can't be passed just yet. There are several citation needed and clarification needed tags (which indicates that the article is considered under-referenced; even if this is promoted to prep, it is just as likely to be "unpromoted"), and the formatting issues I brought up have not been dealt with (the image below the references is dealt with by WP:MOSIM "Each image should be inside the major section to which it relates", and Template:Infobox library implies that thumbnails should not be used by including a specific "caption" parameter) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't insult your writing. I called your judgment into question, which may, perhaps, cause you to rethink it. If not so be it. And there are no formatting issues that you "brought up" -- you're just brining them up now.
That being said, please point to the rule or guideline forbidding a reasonable number of cite-needed or clar-needed tags on non-contentious statements -- if you honestly wish to challenge something per WP:PROVEIT, go ahead and do that; otherwise you seem to be demanding that the article be fully MOS-compliant in every detail, which to my knowledge isn't a requirement of DYK. As to the infobox image, I don't see what in the template doc you're talking about, but the reason I went to the trouble of using {{image}} within the library template was to respect the MOS provision that upright should be used in preference to px-defined fixed image sizes. EEng (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I could have sworn I mentioned this here... maybe I posted the comments elsewhere. Within templates, you can use {{!}} to apply upright without resorting to thumbnail (or leave everything alone and let the default size be used). I didn't add the citation needed tags, check the history, and there is likewise no rule that they are allowed at all (if you want to play that game, fine, let's play). If you don't agree with my review, then ask for a second opinion. Otherwise clean up the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody said that you added the cite needed tags -- I added them, mostly on statements already in the article before I started expanding it. They are pedestrian stuff like the building's square footage which can quite happily stay until someone finds a source -- though as I said, if you honestly think one of them's not verifiable, then I won't object to removing it. There's no "game" to play here, but you seem to be saying that unless some rule explicitly allows something, you are free to use it as an objection, and that's ridiculous. Now again, please show me where a reasonable number of cite-needed tags, on an otherwise extremely carefully cited article, is disallowed. The rules say dispute templates shouldn't be present, and that's not the same thing. EEng (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- And you seem to be saying that unless some rule explicitly disallows something, it cannot be used as a point of opposition (which is 180 degrees opposite of what is in DYKSG D13). You will not get a pass from me with citation needed tags. If you wish for a second opinion, please post at WT:DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK, they're all gone. OK now? EEng (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- You can't simply remove the tags without addressing the underlying issues. Direct quotes like ""open-work iron floors render quiet impossible ... the mud on the boots of the student above drops onto the head of the student below ... Cataloguing falls behind, for there Is not sufficient room to seat the cataloguers." need to be referenced, per WP:CITE ("Sources are also required when quoting someone, with or without quotation marks, or closely paraphrasing a source.") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK, they're all gone. OK now? EEng (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody said that you added the cite needed tags -- I added them, mostly on statements already in the article before I started expanding it. They are pedestrian stuff like the building's square footage which can quite happily stay until someone finds a source -- though as I said, if you honestly think one of them's not verifiable, then I won't object to removing it. There's no "game" to play here, but you seem to be saying that unless some rule explicitly allows something, you are free to use it as an objection, and that's ridiculous. Now again, please show me where a reasonable number of cite-needed tags, on an otherwise extremely carefully cited article, is disallowed. The rules say dispute templates shouldn't be present, and that's not the same thing. EEng (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't insult your writing. I called your judgment into question, which may, perhaps, cause you to rethink it. If not so be it. And there are no formatting issues that you "brought up" -- you're just brining them up now.
- "Extrinsic to the core content" -- something else you've just made up. Nonetheless I have better things to do than fight the usual DYK mindlessness. I have therefore run all the notes into the main text. It doesn't read very well, but hey, DYK only counts characters -- article quality doesn't count. Now push your mindless button on your mindless character-counting tool. Let me know when you've done that. EEng (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is extrinsic to the core content of an article (like references and tables) and set aside in a special section which many will overlook (like references). You've already had two reviewers opine that the footnotes do not count, and I doubt there will be many who will support your position. If you want, you can bring this to WT:DYK, or you can expand the article proper. If this is found to not be enough expansion, then this article will be failed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- The rules say nothing about what the reader "needs to read to understand the article" -- you're just making that up. As to notes being "essentially the same class as that which are explicitly excluded", here's what's explicitly excluded:
I've attempted to rework one paragraph so that we both provide context and avoid breaking the flow and including too much information. Please have a look. We can continue working through the prose if you agree with something like that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead. Since it's impossible to predict what additional random "rules" you'll make up, such as " per WP:CITE, we should have footnotes immediately after direct quotes" [1] (which isn't true -- an inline cite is required, but not immediately after the quote), why don't you just keep fooling with the material until you're satisfied? EEng (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Alright, this last batch of edits by EEng has convinced me that the editor is unwilling to collaborate to make sure we get an article that meets criteria. He disputes that quotations should be followed by in-text citations, is unwilling to fulfill his own citation needed tags (i.e. he knows referencing is lacking, and still does nothing about it), and is apparently willing to let a monstrosity such as this (want to count the number of MOS violations and instances of bad prose, anyone?) go on the main page simply to get a DYK credit, I think this should be failed. I've even tried tried helping to massage the prose, but I've gotten nothing but heckling. Eeng, if you dispute this failure then I will ask for a third opinion at WT:DYK. If you don't, goodbye. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- What last batch of edits by me? I haven't edited since you started editing! What are you talking about? The prose is bad because you insisted that prose notes don't count as prose unless they're part of the main text -- and now you complain about the flow! I did not dispute that quotations should be carried by in-text citations (which is true) -- I disputed that every quotation has to be immediately followed by an in-text citation (which is what you said, and which is false). And, I repeat, DYKs don't have to be fully MOS-compliant -- even GAs don't have to be fully MOS-compliant. The rules for DYK are the rules for DYK, and D13 isn't a carte blanche for a reviewer to make up his own criteria -- it's a call for common sense, which is sorely lacking here. EEng (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- I did not insist that you simply remove the EFN templates and insert what should be block quotes as running text, or that you ruin the flow of the text. I even gave you an alternative which allowed for contextual information in-text without ruining the flow (it could probably be polished a bit more, but the gist of it is clear). You chose your route, ruining what was there. Don't blame me.
- Finally, you actually realize that D13 exists! I'm not using it as a carte blanche. I'm probably not even reviewing as stringently as the anti-DYK crowd would if they came across this article (and trust me, it will be pulled in its current state). I'm asking for 5x expansion without padding (not unreasonable) and the article to be referenced properly (also not unreasonable). That's not "GA criteria" by far. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- What last batch of edits by me? I haven't edited since you started editing! What are you talking about? The prose is bad because you insisted that prose notes don't count as prose unless they're part of the main text -- and now you complain about the flow! I did not dispute that quotations should be carried by in-text citations (which is true) -- I disputed that every quotation has to be immediately followed by an in-text citation (which is what you said, and which is false). And, I repeat, DYKs don't have to be fully MOS-compliant -- even GAs don't have to be fully MOS-compliant. The rules for DYK are the rules for DYK, and D13 isn't a carte blanche for a reviewer to make up his own criteria -- it's a call for common sense, which is sorely lacking here. EEng (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I support rejection of the article, - the prose (!) has not been expanded five times, and we don't make new rules for this article. If you want to see it in the DYK section, go for Good article status, they are eligible. However, it will take some work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? The mindless tool currently gives [2] 12136, which is over 5X the 2326 base figure mentioned above. If I wanted to go for GA I would, but as noted above, Crisco is trying to apply GA criteria -- in fact, criteria not even required for GA -- to DYK. For now I'll return the article to its earlier layout, with notes as notes and main text as main text, preserving useful changes recently made. When Bluemoonset is available I'd like to hear what he or she thinks. EEng (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Blockquotes are not counted. In certain cases, lengthy in-text quotes (such as here) are not counted; Nikkimaria has removed several articles from prep owing to this issue. If we remove all of the quotes from this article, we get less than a 5x expansion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, I see... Here we do override the mindless tool -- after a dozen rounds of posts and edits no longer mentioning the expansion issue, you're now back to it again, with a new argument. If the actual way expansion is calculated can be explained, I'll be happy to provide more text to meet the threshold. But really, let's wait for BMS, who I suspect regrets pointing you here. Good move, BTW, pinging someone else to pile on. EEng (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
- The lack of AGF in this comment and the ones below are evidence of a severe underlying problem in your approach to editing. I strongly doubt Nikki would comment here unless there were issues with possible copyvios, or if this had been introduced in the prep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- confirming that sufficient expansion has not taken place. It may have been possible to merge the notes into prose to boost the count. But it did not happen, when there has been plenty of time for it. So just leave this as not passed instead of arguing about tools. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Again we have someone dropping to in to comment who doesn't know what's going on. Today the idea comes up of merging the notes into the main text. Then someone says the result interferes with the flow. Then it's also asserted that even if they were merged in, maybe they wouldn't count anyway, because some of it, even though not block quotes, might count as block quotes anyway. Now someone arrives to say, "It may have been possible to merge the notes into prose to boost the count. But it did not happen, when there has been plenty of time for it" -- yes, that's right, less than a day is plenty of time.
- Meanwhile, I decide that, despite the stupidity of all this, I'll go back and just add yet more material to meet the 5X even without the notes. While I'm doing that, someone else shows up to declare the article failed. No wonder everyone despises the DYK process, which values slapdash fake-finished articles over careful articles with areas needing improvement frankly pointed out. Just hold your horses. EEng (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- I might add that the most recent editor commenting moves at what might charitably be called a stately pace when it comes to issues with his own DYK noms. [3] EEng (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- That last comment is crossing over into borderline personal attacks. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Also, nobody said "some of it, even though not block quotes, might count as block quotes anyway". I said, essentially, lengthy quotes which are not in block quotes are sometimes subtracted from the total, which is a perfectly true descriptive reading of DYK practice.04:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Then someone says the result interferes with the flow." - Yeah, that's the gist of what you said here. Don't blame me for an issue you spotted and yet allowed anyways. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, I see... Here we do override the mindless tool -- after a dozen rounds of posts and edits no longer mentioning the expansion issue, you're now back to it again, with a new argument. If the actual way expansion is calculated can be explained, I'll be happy to provide more text to meet the threshold. But really, let's wait for BMS, who I suspect regrets pointing you here. Good move, BTW, pinging someone else to pile on. EEng (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I stand by everything I've written here. Pointing out an apparent double standard isn't a personal attack.
Try if you can to focus. Yes, I said that running the notes into the text didn't flow well, because that's true. It was you, though, who added that to the list of things you wanted remedied for DYK approval [4], thus once again illustrating your penchant for injecting your personal criteria into the process, because smooth reading isn't among the DYK criteria.
Anyway, I've now bulked the article to the point that the mindless tool reads 11699 (not counting the notes), which is 69 characters more than 5X the 2326 base figure! If you must pick that apart and say that this or that long quote should be subtracted, I'll just have to add more material in compensation. I've also removed all the cite-neededs, except for one, which I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive. Anything else? EEng (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- This looks like a list of criteria for you? And you accuse me of making things up? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- And again, you appear physically incapable of realising that the DYK rules do not outline every possible issue. They don't say that an article has to be in English, but that doesn't mean that an article in a foreign language is going to pass. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm saying that you have repeatedly raised objections randomly grabbed from various guidelines, guidelines not required to be met at DYK, so that there's no way to know in advance what an article must look like to pass. Articles need to be in English because this is the English Wikipedia, obviously. Please go be desperate-to-be-right somewhere else. EEng (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- But that's the point. You are now looking at other policies other than what is explicitly in WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG. That's the same thing you are taking issue with, except I used a more extreme example to show the fallacy of your position. If you can't argue your point without resulting to "Articles need to be in English because this is the English Wikipedia, obviously." (whoop dee doo, I can make the same point about articles needing to be readable, since this is an encyclopedia), you are clearly without a leg to stand on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Being in English, verifiability, BLP, no plagiarism, and respect for copyrights are fundamental policies that all articles must conform to at all times, and are therefore mandatory concerns in any review for any purpose. Subjective concerns such as you have raised, like image placement, are aspirations which don't become mandatory until the article is nominated for GA or FA.
I won't be responding further to your comments since they have no bearing on this nomination. EEng (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Being in English, verifiability, BLP, no plagiarism, and respect for copyrights are fundamental policies that all articles must conform to at all times, and are therefore mandatory concerns in any review for any purpose. Subjective concerns such as you have raised, like image placement, are aspirations which don't become mandatory until the article is nominated for GA or FA.
- I'm saying that you have repeatedly raised objections randomly grabbed from various guidelines, guidelines not required to be met at DYK, so that there's no way to know in advance what an article must look like to pass. Articles need to be in English because this is the English Wikipedia, obviously. Please go be desperate-to-be-right somewhere else. EEng (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Confirming there is now 11707 characters which is 5x. Since this did not get closed I suppose some more time can be allowed to get this through and reassessed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Full review needed now that article qualifies with a 5x expansion. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is a full review due to changes made since nomination. The article is now long enough, and I am taking the date of expansion as acceptable. The hook is supported by offline citation #5, which I take AGF. No problem with disambig links or with external links. The free licence for the hook image is here: File:HarvardUniversity WidenerLibrary SecondFloorPlan SneadIronWorks cropped.jpg, and I have added the image to the Commons "Widener Library" category. Notes: (1) This is a self-nom and requires a QPQ, but the QPQ above is not linked and I cannot find the article on WP (with or without the typo). However EEng already contributes very usefully to the DYK noms effort, so in this particular case I'll accept the QPQ as read. (2) In the "Background" section there are two cases of images on both the left and right of the text, boxing it in, and I understand that this is not as per WP style. This could have been easily resolved by moving some of the images to a gallery section, however this does not affect the DYK nom so it does not concern us here. So we are left with only one problem: In the "Widener Memorial Rooms" section there are two uncited blockquotes, which I am guessing come from citations #52-55 - none of these sources is out of copyright. If you can either (a) add a citation from an out-of-copyright source to each quotation or (b) re-write the long quotes in your own words containing very short quotes, then this nom will be good go. --Storye book (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- I always reinsert one intentional citation error to make sure the reviewer is doing his job. Just kidding (though this is really done in software work -- it's called "bebugging", and that might not be a bad idea here at DYK). Anyway, the cite callout didn't make the attribution clear so I've fixed that now. Source is out of (c).
- Actually, MOS says "avoid sandwiching text between two images" but that can be interpreted as (a) "where you have an image both at left and right, make sure the text isn't too squeezed in between" or (b) "at any given vertical point in the text there should never be an image both to the left and to the right." I posed this question at talk:MOS once but a nuclear war broke out and I was lucky to escape with my life. Pending nonviolent clarification on that I choose (a), since if (b) was meant then it ought to just say that, instead of employing this ambiguous culinary warning.
- Having said that, it's probably a bit too squeezed but as the text grows further there will be more freedom for image placement. What I would love is a row of related images horizontally at the end of an appropriate section (e.g. tablet re Titanic, then Widener will, then Mrs. Widener visiting the site, then the floorplan -- a chronological sequence, you see) but there are a dozen variations on templates for this and I can't find one that looks half decent while respecting the user's login preference for image size. I did something like that at John Harvard (statue) and I think it looks really nice, but again, this uses fixed px and it was a lot of trouble.
- Thanks for the careful review and for your kind comments elsewhere. EEng (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I fixed the QPQ link. At the risk of tempting fate, can you approve instead
- ALT1 ... that the four miles of stacks aisles in Harvard's 3.5-million-volume Widener Library (floorplan pictured) are so labyrinthine that one student felt she ought to carry "a compass, a sandwich, and a whistle" when entering?
Excluding the (floorplan pictured) this is 199 chars -- it's kind of an art form, actually. The additional "four miles of aisles" fact is given at the same point as the rest -- [5]). EEng (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Everything looks good to me, but I'll let Storye finish the review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
QPQ is now OK. "Four miles" addition to hook accepted with offline citation taken AGF. The long quotations are now clearly cited from out-of-copyright sources (Citation #52 is dated 2009, but I understand that the quote itself dates back to the building's dedication date, 1912). Good to go, for ALT1 (at last!) --Storye book (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- What I didn't pick up when you mentioned your copyright concern earlier was that I had failed to make clear in the cite that a new source was quoting an older one -- I've fixed that now. It's a minor point but it's a pleasure working with someone who knows what's what. EEng (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
