Template:Did you know nominations/Ácido Argentino
- 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 SL93 talk 02:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ácido Argentino
- ... that Rolling Stone listed Ácido Argentino as the best album of Argentine heavy metal?
- Source: "Los 40 discos esenciales del metal argentino" [The essential 40 albums of Argentine metal] (in Spanish). Rolling Stone. May 16, 2024. Retrieved July 25, 2024.
5x expanded by Cambalachero (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 121 past nominations.
Cambalachero (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC).
Reviewing... Flibirigit (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- ?
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing: - ?
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
The article was expanded from 469 to 3169 characters of readable prose from July 23 to 25, and nominated on July 25. The length of the prose section is adequate, however the introduction is too short and makes the nomination look like a work in progress, as per WP:DYKCRIT. A better introduction will have at least two sentences summarizing the background and recording, and one sentence for the reception. The track listing is unsourced, and as per WP:RATEYOURMUSIC, a better source is needed that is not WP:DEPRECATED. The article is neutral in tone, and no plagiarism was detected. The hook is interesting to a broad audience, properly mentioned and cited in the article, and verified by the source in Spanish. The album cover image has an appropriate non-free license. The QPQ requirement is complete. Flibirigit (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Done. The track list does need references, no album article asks for that, not even featured ones. As for the personell, the album itself should be an acceptable primary source per WP:PRIMARY. Cambalachero (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I have posed the question at WT:DYK with respect to citations for the track listing and personnel. Let's see what the consensus is. Otherwise, I see no concerns here. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fairly sure the tracklisting and personnel come under WP:PLOTSOURCE, although this does need a copyedit. WP:DYKRR says "only full reviews with no reliable predecessors count as a QPQ" and that nomination did have one - does it count?--Launchballer 14:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- That nomination needed a full review at that point (it was not a passing by comment). I can make a new review if needed, but in a couple of days, I'm out og town right now Cambalachero (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I concur that the QPQ is valid due to large expansion of the article at the nomination necessitated a full review. Flibirigit (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- My reading of WP:PLOTSOURCE is that it does not in fact apply to track listings and personnel. For one thing, it's explicitly talking about plot sections, and I really don't think either count as plot or even match the spirit of the guideline. Although one can assume good faith that the track listings and personnel are cited to the CD itself, it's always safe to make that clear especially to those who many not access to it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Although it is correct that PLOTSOURCE does not apply here, the basic premise behind it is similar. The content is readily available in the work itself, it is provided here in a way that does not involve any interpretation of it on our part, and it does not make the most of the article or its claim to notability. It is a primary source, but an acceptable use of it as pointed. Yes, not everybody may have access to the source, and that goes for all sources in all articles, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. It's not needed to cite other sources for this, especially as those sources would be merely repeating verbatim the content of the primary source just as we are doing right now. Cambalachero (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Launchballer – per WikiProject guidance at WP:PERSONNEL, credits are generally considered to be sourced to the liner notes, and citing the cd/notes directly is fine. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Also, to Narutolovehinata5's point, we regularly assume good faith on offline claims that are verifiable in principle. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I am satisfied that sourcing is complete as per the above discussion. The introduction has also been expanded. The article meets all other DYK criteria as per my review. Flibirigit (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Cambalachero: Is it extrapolating to go from "most essential" to "best"? Rjjiii (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is a "best of" list, "best", "essential" or whatever are just exchangeable synonyms. Cambalachero (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Although it is correct that PLOTSOURCE does not apply here, the basic premise behind it is similar. The content is readily available in the work itself, it is provided here in a way that does not involve any interpretation of it on our part, and it does not make the most of the article or its claim to notability. It is a primary source, but an acceptable use of it as pointed. Yes, not everybody may have access to the source, and that goes for all sources in all articles, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. It's not needed to cite other sources for this, especially as those sources would be merely repeating verbatim the content of the primary source just as we are doing right now. Cambalachero (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- That nomination needed a full review at that point (it was not a passing by comment). I can make a new review if needed, but in a couple of days, I'm out og town right now Cambalachero (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fairly sure the tracklisting and personnel come under WP:PLOTSOURCE, although this does need a copyedit. WP:DYKRR says "only full reviews with no reliable predecessors count as a QPQ" and that nomination did have one - does it count?--Launchballer 14:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
