Template:Did you know nominations/Adriana Hoffmann
- The following discussion 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 Allen3 talk 16:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Adriana Hoffmann
[edit]- ... that Chilean Environment Minister Adriana Hoffmann identified 106 new species of cacti?
- Reviewed: Dorothy Proctor
Created by Gobonobo (talk). Self nominated at 08:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC).
Please describe just what was checked in the review (which should always be done as a matter of course): size, age, neutrality, hook sourcing, article sourcing, close paraphrasing, QPQ review adequacy, etc. (This review, in itself, is not adequate to qualify as a QPQ.) Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I see. A complete review includes all of those things, so I thought it was not necessary to mention individual requirements unless they were not met. Anyway, size obviously checks out (one section alone is over 2500 characters long). It was nominated the same day it was created. The hook is sourced. All paragraphs are sourced. 0.0% confidence of a copyright violation. QPQ done. Surtsicna (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Surtsicna. I appreciate it. Just so you know: there's currently a request to remove the copyvio tool because it is so ineffective at finding copyvios and close paraphrasing—it doesn't actually check the sources used in the article! See WT:DYK#Please remove the Copyvio Check from the DYK toolbox for the current discussion. Also, as T:TDYK#How to review a nomination explains, reviews should
begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed
. The problem for those of us looking to promote a hook to a prep area is that we don't know (and can't keep track) of who is a new reviewer and who is knowledgeable, and whether they've remembered to check everything or might have forgotten the close paraphrasing or neutrality checks this time. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying. It makes perfect sense. Anyway, I too noticed some irregularities while using the copyvio tool on some occasions, but did not take them seriously. What a disappointment! Is there an alternative? It is easy to check when only few sources are used, but some kind of a tool would be quite useful other cases. Surtsicna (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Surtsicna. I appreciate it. Just so you know: there's currently a request to remove the copyvio tool because it is so ineffective at finding copyvios and close paraphrasing—it doesn't actually check the sources used in the article! See WT:DYK#Please remove the Copyvio Check from the DYK toolbox for the current discussion. Also, as T:TDYK#How to review a nomination explains, reviews should