- 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) 07:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
J. W. Lonoaea
edit- ... that J. W. Lonoaea was the only fatality of the Honolulu Courthouse riot?
- ALT1:... that J. W. Lonoaea died because he voted for a king instead of a queen?
- Reviewed: Parshvanatha temple, Khajuraho
Moved to mainspace by KAVEBEAR (talk). Self-nominated at 07:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC).
- I have made some copyedits. Happy to do the review if there is no objection to the copyedits. Thoughts, KAVEBEAR? EdChem (talk) 06:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- They look great.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Appreciate your willingness to do the review, EdChem, however, per DYK rules editors who were involved in writing the article are not eligible to conduct reviews. It appears you contributed four edits over two days. I've gone ahead and completed the review as a courtesy. LavaBaron (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Article is new enough (moved to mainspace 23NOV), and long enough. Hook is interesting and of appropriate length. Both article and hook are NPOV. There are no outstanding maintenance tags at the article. No image to review against. No signs of copyvio of close paraphrasing. QPQ done. Hook is immediately and correctly cited in article to Alexander's "A Brief History of the Hawaiian People." All other criteria met. GTG. LavaBaron (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hold – there are a couple of issues I still wanted to explore with Kavebear. LavaBaron would you please clarify whether you are approving ALT0 or ALT1 or both. It is my view that ALT1 is a much more interesting hook and I understand what it means, so I see ALT1 as suitable for the quirky slot, but I am not sure it would be seen as acceptable. KAVEBEAR, do you have a preference out of ALT0 and ALT1? EdChem (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- KAVEBEAR, thank you for responding. I have edited the Lonoaea article so that there are direct citations on each element of the hook in the lede. No matter what you think of that requirement, it has consensus at DYK and if the article were promoted in the form LavaBaron approved, a challenge to the hook citation or pulling from the preps / queues was highly likely. I ask, please make sure that you do include direct citations on your DYK nominations. I welcome your contributions, as I am sure do many others, so please don't be discouraged by that rule. With my edits, I think that ALT0 is acceptable, and assuming LavaBaron's review is accurate (and I have seen nothing which contradicts it), you could leave ALT0 to be promoted. However, I think ALT1 is better, and am willing to see if it would be supported. Alternatively, to me ALT0 leaves a question as to what the riot was about and why Lonoaea matters, so maybe it could be expanded as something like: "... that J. W. Lonoaea was the only fatality of the Honolulu Courthouse riots, which targeted legislators who supported the election of King Kalākaua?" Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
- To minimize any further disputes, I am fine with either hook. I will let the promoter decide what to do further. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I must say I'm glad that LavaBaron doesn't delve into the history on the articles I approve, because I also do copyediting and fix reference formatting in the same way that EdChem has done on this article. If I were to add additional sources and compose new text, I would add myself to the DYK creation credits and recuse myself from the review. But EdChem has done no more than copyediting to bring the article up to snuff, so there is no reason he can't finish the review. Meanwhile, it is unclear why you, LavaBaron, have only reviewed the first hook. You should have verified the sourcing in both hooks and stated your preference, to be left up to the promoter to decide. Otherwise it looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Regarding ALT1, IDOLIKEIT, and I am hereby approving it. It is clever, quirky, and verified inline. Rest of review per LavaBaron. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- With due respect to this conspiracy theory, the reality is I didn't immediately clear Alt-1 because I couldn't: the reference you OK'ed simply doesn't support it as sourced (to page 83 of the text only). Fairly straightforward (see: Occam's razor). You then charged in and green-ticked it before it could be workshopped; c'est la vie. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry. The first hook fact is sourced to p. 83 of Dabagh; the second hook fact is offline and therefore AGF. Both are cited inline in the lead. Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Apology accepted, however, the second hook is actually online and cited to Dabagh, on page
8789 (with the first part on 83 - which is the problem with the reference and the reason I didn't clear it, it only cites 83). But green light this, if you wish, this is just a general comment for the benefit of the promoter so they know there's an issue with your Alt-1 review; it is not an override of your green-tick. LavaBaron (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)- ??? So why don't you fix the problem instead of commenting on it? Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Because I am a reviewer on this article and our rules restrict contributors to articles from also reviewing them. But you know that, of course. LavaBaron (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think you are interpreting the rules far too narrowly. Changing the page numbers in a reference will not preclude you from reviewing anything. Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I prefer not to play "fast and loose" with the rules, for what should be obvious reasons. The real question here is why did you make the choice to green-tick a not properly sourced hook, Alt1? And, once I'd made you aware it's not properly sourced, why have you not (a) amended your green-tick, and (b) maturely apologized to me for claiming my own refusal to do so was because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? LavaBaron (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think you are interpreting the rules far too narrowly. Changing the page numbers in a reference will not preclude you from reviewing anything. Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Because I am a reviewer on this article and our rules restrict contributors to articles from also reviewing them. But you know that, of course. LavaBaron (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- ??? So why don't you fix the problem instead of commenting on it? Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
- Apology accepted, however, the second hook is actually online and cited to Dabagh, on page
- With due respect to this conspiracy theory, the reality is I didn't immediately clear Alt-1 because I couldn't: the reference you OK'ed simply doesn't support it as sourced (to page 83 of the text only). Fairly straightforward (see: Occam's razor). You then charged in and green-ticked it before it could be workshopped; c'est la vie. Best - LavaBaron (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
