Jump to content

Talk:Avtar Singh Jouhl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Davidjes601 (talk) and Zeromonk (talk). Nominated by Zeromonk (talk) at 09:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Joofjoof I would say say so, but only on the topic of things relating to bars (pubs) and beers. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good Beer Hunting is a reliable source for the topic per its editorial staff and the awards won. However, there are multiple citation needed tags in the article and Eagwig is showing copyright violations. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC) SL93 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citation needed tags were taken care of by someone else, but the copyright violations are still there. SL93 (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks folks - I did the CN tags but the article written after the Wiki article is causing the CopyVio - you'll see from the publication dates that the Wiki one came first, so it isn't actually CopyVio - the later article echoes this text rather than the other way around. Zeromonk (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Diff 1077118420 (March 14, 2022) has the same text that got flagged as copyvio with the article (published March 16, 2022), so this is a somewhat odd case of WP:BACKWARDSCOPY. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 08:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, apologies Padgriffin, the author (of both the Wiki article and the GBH article) told me that the Wiki one published first. The text flagged as CV are all quotes within quotemarks and cited - I can't rewrite the quotes, would you suggest that I remove them? Zeromonk (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zeromonk: It seems like most of the quotes are properly attributed and would pass MOS:QUOTE, so there's not really any real reason to remove them IMO.
@Zeromonk: There is non-quoted material that could be reworded such as "Under the guise of the IWA", "under the shade of trees", while white workers were paid", "had been living in Smethwick", "meetings once or twice in Wolverhampton", and some others per Earwig. SL93 (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: I've changed all of those now, thank you for the suggestions. Zeromonk (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting a new reviewer. I suggest that someone goes through Earwig and reword all of the non-quoted material. SL93 (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that all the issues raised above have been dealt with. Earwig is still an issue, but I don't think we can resolve that. I'm going to ignore earwig. I added the photo to the nomination. --evrik (talk) 18:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's something odd going on with the sourcing - I see for example that "quite a few times" is quoted as being from goodbeerhunting, but does not appear in it. Ditto the info on his religion, his nephew, his children... all don't seem to be verified by the given citations. Was another source removed? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I remember seeing the information elsewhere and it appears that I mixed things up by mixing up information I read elsewhere to what was in the article. I'm having trouble finding it again, but that is probably for the best since the article history shows that Davidjes601 placed those false citations. It would still be long enough with that information removed so maybe that is an option? SL93 (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially, but there seems to be some confusion around other sources as well - for example "didn't cut Indian hair" does appear in the goodbeer source, but is cited to another source in which it does not appear. So I'd say some more thorough verification work is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will take care of that today since I already did the rewording. I will post back here when that's done. SL93 (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Though I do feel like I should receive a DYKmake credit if my work pushes the nomination through. Not sure if that sounds selfish though. SL93 (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I think I got it. SL93 (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suport giving SL93 author's credit.--evrik (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough problematic here that I think this should be closed as failed. There is still blatant copyvio such as "a majority black and Asian town" and an over reliance on quotes. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree. This is an piece about a person that adds needed diversity to our DYK postings. I think we let this one get fixed. --evrik (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only copyvio left is "a majority black and Asian town". The rest are things that can't be reworded such as "the London School of Economics" and "the Indian Workers’ Association (IWA)". I can reword that one part, but I'm not going to if there is a chance of this being failed due to an over reliance on quotes. SL93 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the much more pressing problem is the tag added by Nikkimaria; it's a WP:DISPUTETAG, and the nomination can't be promoted until it's off. While the quotes are a little more than I'd personally use, i don't think it rises to the level of OVERQUOTE or copyvio. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron Thanks for adding the author contribution. I reworded the last bit of copyvio (no such as, that was it). I also removed much of the quoting by making some of it into pure non-quoted prose. I'm hoping that Nikkimaria returns, I did ping them here before. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately on spotchecks I still have concerns about verifiability. For example the claim that he campaigned for Walker is cited to this source that doesn't mention him. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Saying one example isn't nearly as good as listing all of the issues at once. With that, it could be corrected in one go. SL93 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check every single source; someone will need to go through all of them to make sure the article is supported, before the tag can be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I agree with what Evrik says about the needed diversity for DYK, but I vote for closing this nomination because the nominators aren't trying to fix anything. Adding false citations after I brought up the citation needed tags is not helpful and I already removed several unsupported sentences and their "sources". I just completely removed the Walker information, mostly due to the article being a BLP. SL93 (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Guerillero about closing this nomination. SL93 (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93, Nikkimaria, and Theleekycauldron:Hello folks, I am interested in working on this but I am not able to be as active on Wiki as frequently as I would like due to personal circumstances, please can you bear with me whilst I try to find the time to read and address the messages on this? Also, please AGF - if sources have been incorrectly matched with information my attempts to try and fix this in the time I have available then I sincerely apologise but it was not in an attempt to be "false" but likely because I have attached the wrong citation to a sentence - an error but not deception. Zeromonk (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93, Nikkimaria, and Theleekycauldron: Checking the verifiability now. Should be okay task as likely one (AGF) error only. Stinglehammer (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
on hold pending this being sorted out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stinglehammer, what on earth is this article doing with {{Verified}} templates all over it, which shows up as a green check icon followed by Verified. If you want to add a hidden comment that you've verified a particular statement, that's okay as a temporary measure, but it should never be visible to readers. Also, are you done with the verification process? You left an article template that indicated that there was more work to do, though it was removed by a bot after being up for over a week. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stinglehammer I think you meant to respond here instead of the article talk page. There are two "Needs verified" in the article. SL93 (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see which ones need verifying (not sure how to turn on hidden comments?) but I suspect they're the physcial books that someone would need to go to a library and check. Thanks all so much for your work on this. Is there anything else required from me to help with this one at this point, or is it now ready for a re-review? Zeromonk (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zeromonk, the two "failed verification" tags are visible to all and in the Career section: the first at the end of the first subsection, and the second in the middle paragraph of the second subsection. Can you check them? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the following two paragraphs from the talk page to this discussion page. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset and Zeromonk: WP:AGF, the template was added as a stopgap measure while the sources needed checked as per conversation above. Ergo, I used the verified template to keep track of which statements and sources had ben verified and pinged the DYK nominator Zeromonk that this had been done to get nomination moving once again and the Verified tags removed. Easy enough done when you Ctrl R them all. Agree they were on longer than they should have been and that the In use/ Under Construction template was removed as result. Happy to use different invisible comment method in future but the task of checking each statement was something needing done and systematically so. Took a good while and was done in good faith as temporary measure to evidence the check and to get this nomination moving so please view in this light. Many thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could see only one tagged statement remaining. I have cited it to the Administrative History for papers in the Birmingham City Archives which clearly states "He was dismissed from Shotton Brothers in 1961". Note the spelling, which I corrected. Please note that this is based not on a primary source (the papers themselves) but rather a secondary source (the summary information compiled by the archivist at the archives.) Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article was created in 2021 in sandbox, moved to draft on 16 March 2022, and later published that same day. Nominated 22 March, i.e. new enough. 12976 char, long enough; cited; neutral; QPQ done. I compared each link with the text in earwig and made minor edits. Appears that only quotations and titles are now noted in Earwig, excepting the Good Beer Hunting blog which was published using the WP article as a source per above discussion. Hook at 118 char is under the minimum, has broad appeal IMO, and is cited. I am doubtful that the photograph can be used, as I see no notice of release to commons from the family that says they were the owner of it and that they have released rights to it. Thus, GTG, but without the photo. SusunW (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the image from the article too. If its status is dubious, then it shouldn't appear at all. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avtar_Singh_Jouhl&oldid=1207926647"