Template:Did you know nominations/Animal Rights Without Liberation
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Animal Rights Without Liberation
[edit]... that, in Animal Rights Without Liberation, Alasdair Cochrane argues for a middle ground between the animal rights of Tom Regan and the welfarism of Peter Singer?
- Comment: This fact is in some ways a summary of the whole article, but is explicitly mentioned in the reception section, cited to both Clifton and Ebert. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by J Milburn (talk). Self-nominated at 10:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC).
You will need to do a QPQ review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- Reviewed/reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Dimension 5 (film). Josh Milburn (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- This article is new enough and long enough. It is neutral and does not contain close paraphrasing as far as I can see. The problem is with the proposed hook which does not have the inline citations necessary according to the rules of DYK. I suggest you try to find a suitable hook that does conform, such as this direct quote from Hadley:
ALT1 ... that, in Animal Rights Without Liberation, Alasdair Cochrane aims to "promote well-being without giving animals a right to liberty"?
or
- ALT2 ... that, in Animal Rights Without Liberation, Alasdair Cochrane argues that hunting animals is unacceptable, but controlling their numbers using contraception is permissible? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I'm sorry, I completely missed this. I have modified ALT2, and I am happy to go ahead with it- I agree that this is a good factoid. I would prefer not to use the direct quote. (If you prefer ALT1, I could work out a nice way to paraphrase Hadley's quote? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Having proposed ALT2, I am not permitted to approve it, according to what I consider rather odd DYK practice, so an independent reviewer is now needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your efforts. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
New reviewer needed to check ALT2 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The hook elements are present, and cited (AGF for the offline ref to the book). They are not close together in the article, which is not ideal IMO, but both are actually stated and cited more than once, in different forms of words. ALT2 looks good to me. DES (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
