Template:Did you know nominations/Alison Sheridan
- 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: rejected by Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Alison Sheridan
[edit]... that Alison Sheridan interpreted pottery finds from different areas of England and Europe as a "definite type of monumental architecture" in regional migration of Neolithic farmers?
Created by Nvvchar (talk). Self-nominated at 02:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Not seeing the citation for "definite type of monumental architecture" - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - No citation for hook sentence.
- Interesting: - Too long and confusing. How about something about "little and large" – miniature stone balls
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Andrew D. (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson Thanks for the review. Sorry about the misinterpretation. I have corrected it in the text as "ceramic and monument typologies" and also fixed a ref. I have crossed the original hook and suggesting the following two hooks.Nvvchar. 05:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that Alison Sheridan in her research work studied "the miniature 'carved stone ball' beads from the eastern passage tomb under the main mound at Knowth, Ireland"?
ALT2 ... that Alison Sheridan interpreted pottery finds from different areas of England and Europe under "ceramic and monument typologies" in the context of movement of Neolithic farmers?
Reviewer needed for ALT hooks, and to check the changes to the article since the original review. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing: - too few independent sources
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting: - ALT1: sorry, I dont see anything interesting there. ALT2: this may be true but technical jargon and again where's the novelty in "interpreting pottery finds in the context of movement of Neolithic farmers" ?
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
The lede is crammed with publication titles, reiterated in the section publications, which arent sourced (mere titles) The hooks are uninteresting IMHO. The subsection titles dont conform with WP:MOS. I think a DYK should wait until the bio digs deeper and generates some truly interesting facts or. Not every page is worth a DYK. --Wuerzele (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can't find more sources. I therefore prefer to withdraw this nomination.Nvvchar. 10:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)