Jump to content

Talk:What's Wright? with Nick Wright

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 RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

( Comment or view )

Created by Soulbust (talk). Self-nominated at 19:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Soulbust: Both articles are new enough and long enough. Two QPQs have been presented.
    • What's Wright? with Nick Wright:
      • Two paragraphs currently lack inline citations.
      • I'm a bit concerned this podcast on its own does not meet the WP:GNG. The sources do not cover the podcast at any level of detail to suggest that it has standalone notability, and some of them are also of questionable reliability or utility. I'd look at this and suggest merging to Nick Wright (sportscaster), frankly, and at that maybe only one or two sentences.
    • Sports podcast:
      • No issues I see. I do suggest taking a couple of facts out of unwarranted quotes like which produces 160 daily shows for U.S. sports teams." and "Unlike TV, where live games account for all but a handful of the most-watched programs in the U.S. each year, sports podcasts trail shows focused on news and political shows or general interest in both audience size and revenue." and rephrasing them in our own words, though.
      • A personal kudos for tackling this broad-concept article. BCAs can be tough to write, and there is clearly a body of literature specific to sports podcasts for this article to draw from.
    • The hook fact checks out, but it's boring as all get-out...and given how bad the What's Wright page is, I'm not going to even suggest it.
  • My suggestion is to excise the What's Wright page, merge it up, and only send up Sports podcast to DYK. This will require a new hook to be selected, something like...
  • Please let me know if you have questions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: Okay, yeah I have no problem with running sports podcast on its own. I was actually considering that before deciding to just pair the two articles together, so I'm good with ALT1 or ALT2 for the hook. Probably leaning toward ALT1.
On the other note about the What's Wright? article, I'm guessing you meant two sentences instead of paragraphs for the article currently lacking in-line citations? (The ones relating to the schedule of the podcast and the sports discussed on it). I will try to find citations for that. I don't think the article is bad, however. I think it is deserving of its own article. If anything, the focus of that article can be redirected to the What's Wright? overall branding (similar to how The Herd or The Dan Patrick Show articles are formatted); Wright has used this title on three separate occasions now.
At DYK, every paragraph beyond the lead must end in an inline citation (the largest exception being the plot section). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I'd actually prefer to keep the focus on the podcast if possible, just because sports podcasts are pretty grossly overlooked by media in general. That applies here on Wikipedia too, considering how recently the broad sports podcast article was made and how bare bones and rough the List of sports podcasts currently looks. So I think keeping the What's Wright? article is fairly important.
For clarification, I don't think just any sports podcast should have its own article. But when a major sports network like ESPN or Fox Sports launches its own audio network, the programs on those networks should be viewed more or less like the programs on their TV network (i.e. First Take). So I think for these certain podcasts that have almost a sort of built-in notability, they should be backed by relevant RS to support their own articles)
Finally, thank you for the kudos. I was pretty surprised the sports podcast concept wasn't already covered. Definitely intend to look at sources covering the topic over the next few months and years since they seem to be increasing to try and improve the article some more. Soulbust (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Soulbust: Podcasts fall under the GNG, and I would state that notability is not inherited from its distributor or its host. For a variety of reasons, a TV show distributed/aired by ESPN is much more likely to become notable than a podcast from ESPN. Someone needs to review ALT1 and ALT2 for Sports podcast. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: I get that notability isn't inherited yeah. I think the WW? podcast establishes GNG on its own, however. In addition to the sourcing present on that article, it's also been cited in some Sports Illustrated articles for example. I do agree that sports TV shows are more likely to become notable than sports podcasts, although there are some of the latter type that I believe meet the GNG criteria. In any case, thank you for the help on this DYK nom. Soulbust (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, articles in this situation remain eligible for DYK review unless they are merged or nominated for merging – if the author doesn't wish to do that, then the article would remain up for review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approved with ALT1 or ALT2, which focus only on Sports podcast, per Sammi Brie's original review plus review of ALT hooks. Pinging Soulbust to suggest that you officially take back one of your QPQs, so you can use it again in the future. (Side note: I accept that What's Wright? With Nick Wright probably satisfies GNG; I'm just not 100% comfortable with at least two of the sources cited (specifically CardsChat and AllHipHop) as reliable sources. But by taking that part of the nomination out of the equation, I think you are good to go with the ALT hooks provided by Sammi.) Cielquiparle (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A hook cannot be promoted with potentially unreliable sources in the article. SL93 (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AllHipHop should be fine, I believe. It's used on a lot of high-profile articles (like Jay-Z and Nicki Minaj, the latter of which is designated as a Good Article). A hip hop outlet source is relevant since it's sourcing Lil Wayne's appearance on the podcast. I'll look into CardsChat a little more soon, but it also seems to be commonly used on here on Wikipedia. Also these potentially unreliable sources are not in the Sports podcast article, so that should still be clear. Soulbust (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Soulbust. Note to @SL93: You are correct, but this was a double article nomination, and I was only approving the single-article hooks, so the issue with the potentially unreliable sources in the other article is moot. I even crossed out the original two-article hook so there would no confusion. Let's give Soulbust some more time to respond on the sourcing for the other article, and then if we are moving forward with only a single-article hooks, we can get this DYK nomination renamed as appropriate. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Reinstating. SL93 (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with this being a single nomination for Sports podcast. Very okay with that for sure. Soulbust (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:What%27s_Wright%3F_with_Nick_Wright&oldid=1198528484"