Talk:International Fire Marshals Association

Did you know nomination

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 23:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the International Fire Marshals Association is partly responsible for the ban on fireworks in some U.S. states? Source: https://www.firehouse.com/home/news/10497782/international-fire-marshals-association-marks-100-years
  • ALT1: ... that the International Fire Marshals Association has attempted to add fire sprinklers as a requisite to be placed in all new houses? Source: https://www.firehouse.com/home/news/10497782/international-fire-marshals-association-marks-100-years
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mitiarjuk Nappaaluk

Created by Johnson524 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/International Fire Marshals Association; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• The stated hook is mentioned in the reliable sources cited in the article and also the article has no issues regarding copyright. Good to go. I think the first hook is more interesting than ALT1. Toadboy123 (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Johnson524 and Toadboy123: I have concerns about about the sourcing for the article. Most of the references in the article are to blogs or press releases (Currently refs 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 fall under this) and several appear to be flat out unreliable (meaning lack of editorial control). Out of the remaining references (2, 3 and 5), only reference 2 provides significant coverage of the organization, suggesting that the article may fail to meet WP:GNG. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: I'm sorry, can you elaborate on how some of these references individually are flat out unreliable? Johnson524 17:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Johnson524: Here are the ones I mentioned as either not independent or unreliable:

• Ref 1: Their website, not independent
• Ref 4: Company blog
• Ref 6: Press release
• Ref 7: Company blog
• Ref 8: Pamphlet for a conference
• Ref 9: The guy they're talking about is an editor for their own magazine, not independent
• Ref 10: Random blog
• Ref 11: Their website, not independent
• Ref 12: Their website, not independent
• Ref 13: Internal outline of a meeting they had

And then of the remaining references:

• Ref 2: Provides just enough coverage to be significant, is independent and appears to have editorial standards
• Ref 3: Single passing mention
• Ref 5: I'm doubtful this is really independent, but even if it was, it's a single passing mention

In addition, the table of chapters is uncited and WP:OR, as is Progress since then is unclear. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: A few things. One, just because a citation is from a press release or conference does not mean it is "flat out unreliable". I believe each of the citations listed, with the exceptions of the apparently blogs Ref 4 and Ref 10 which I can replace, were used in good faith, but I'm not opposed to removing any of them if you think the article would be better without them. Two, the table of chapters is cited (citation 12) and is intentionally cited using a primary source as it, at least in theory, would provide the most up-to-date information on the status of each chapter, as opposed to a static secondary source (same goes for Ref 1, Ref 7, and Ref 11) and not out of a lack of secondary citations. Three, "progress since then is unclear" only refers to Maryland joining the organization, not the table, but I suppose I can remove that line as re-reading does sound a little bit OR, but that wasn't the point.

While not having an abundance of citations solely about the organization doesn't make for the best article (certainly not a GA candidate), it doesn't mean it's not notable, even if the citations are mentions. I hope I don't come off harsh, but I do want to defend this page notability, especially if you're suggesting deletion. I am prepared to add more citations from newspapers via Wikipedia Library if you would like to see that as well. Thank you for the review, and I hope I can satisfy your needs with these changes. Johnson524 18:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Johnson524: I'm not quite sure why, but your ping didn't go through for me. Anyways, we don't need an abundance of sources, we just need two independent sources that provide significant coverage (and as it stands, the article has only one). I also wanna make it clear that I don't think the non-independent sources are unreliable for most of the sentences they're backing up (just the blogs). Thanks for clarifying about the table/map, though I think there should be a reference on the table header to make this clear. One other concern I have atm is the abundance of external links in the table, which I think does not align with NPOV/due weight, as explained at WP:ELMIN. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: Ok, I have added quite a few citations via Wikipedia Library to the page, as well as I think address the main concerns you brought up. Do you think this DYK can be finished now? Johnson524 05:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Article looks much better now. Approving ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)