Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Annette Lyon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Annette Lyon

[edit]
(
)
  • ... that Annette Lyon is a freelance writer and editor who collaborated with the Newport Ladies Book Club to write a nine-book series?
  • ALT1:... that author Annette Lyon loves chocolate so much that she helped out with the Utah Chocolate Show, and wrote her own chocolate cookbook?
  • Reviewed: Jennifer d'Abo

Created by Amgisseman(BYU) (talk). Self-nominated at 20:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC).

  • Some issues found.
    • ✓ This article is new and was created on 20:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 2053 characters
    • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • ✗ There is possible close paraphrasing on this article with 21.9% confidence. (confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
  • ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 135 characters
  • ✓ This is Amgisseman's 21st nomination. A QPQ review of Template:Did you know nominations/Jennifer d'Abo was performed for this nomination.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 23:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Full review by human reviewer needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The article is new and long enough as reported above, and the "copyvio" was simply a repeat of a basic list, which I doubt could be written any other way. ALT0 doesn't really have a "wow" factor for me. I prefer ALT1, but the article does not directly say she loved chocolate (you could presumably write a book about it without being a particularly big fan), and the rest of the claim is cited to mormonartist.net - what makes that a reliable source for a BLP? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ritchie333 Thank you for your review. In Lyon's bio on her website she mentions that she eats chocolate, so I included that in the article itself. I also added two other sources that support the information in ALT1: one to support her helping out with the Utah chocolate show, and the other a link to the summary of the chocolate book itself on Lyon's website. Do you recommend that I change anything else in the article? Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I dropped in another source for the book. Liking chocolate is not exactly a controversial claim, so that can stay per WP:BLPSELFPUB. So I would say ALT1 is good to go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The Daily Universe doesn't seem to note that she wrote a cookbook and MormonArtist.Net is not RS. The "Daily Herald" source has an embedded YouTube video in which a person claiming to be Annette Lyon claims she wrote a chocolate cookbook, however, the video itself is not from the "Daily Herald" official channel but the channel of someone named Chris Stevenson who has 35 YouTube subscribers and has uploaded 5 videos in the last 3 years. It is unclear if the Chris Stevenson YouTube channel is subject to normal Daily Herald editorial controls (the fact it's embedded on the DH website does not, of itself, establish that as there's no caption or commentary and this may be a "citizen journalism" section of the site). The other source for the cookbook claim is annettelyon.com which is not RS. Everything else looks good (copyvio, length, newness, etc.) (as per a recent decision at ANI, all noms which I review require a second review) LavaBaron (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@LavaBaron: Claims against facts are what are reliable, not sources per se. A source may be acceptable for one claim, but not another. annettelyon.com passes WP:BLPSELFPUB as being a suitable source for innocuous claims about themselves. Dismissing a source as "not RS" is unhelpful, unless you think it is suspicious that Annette Lyon likes chocolate and believe her claim to have written a book is a lie. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
While I personally agree it's improbable Lyon would have much to gain by claiming to write a book she didn't write, it's not absolutely impossible (i.e. is this a paid endorsement, is she trying to burnish her credentials by claiming to have been published, etc.). I was given a 30-day block earlier this month for passing a DYK on the basis a GF claim the Governor of Durango was inaugurated on September 15 instead of a more reliable source that only said sometime during the month of September, and that's probably less controversial than this, so I'm not exactly in a position to give a lot of slack right now. Also in a discussion at talk it's been mentioned this review , specifically, "helped the process" so I feel if I change it to a green tick it will open me up to another TBAN. If you want to re-tick this, however, I won't oppose it. As long as there's a paper trail that I objected I think that's okay. LavaBaron (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
LavaBaron I agree with Ritchie333 (talk)'s assertion that "annettelyon.com passes WP:BLPSELFPUB as being a suitable source for innocuous claims about themselves." Ritchie 333, are there any other issues with this nomination that I should address? Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't feel I have the liberty to change my !vote. Ritchie has an immunity card and can risk green-lighting reviews sourced to personal webpages; I don't have one and can't risk it as it could mean a block for me if this is later challenged. However, as I said, I have no objection to someone promoting this based on Ritchie's green tick, or that of another editor who doesn't mind taking a chance. It's a fantastically written article, BTW - great job! (I'll post a request for a third review in discussion.) LavaBaron (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The cook book's publication details are shown here so maybe just reference the book (including publisher and ISBN) and add it to the list of her publications? EdChem (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
My only possible concern is that the alleged book, despite being five years old, isn't indexed by OCLC [1]. The Amazon listing is a "fulfilled by Amazon" listing which means its listing is third-party submitted versus Amazon. But again, I won't object if someone else promotes it, as long as there's a paper trail that I enumerated concerns. LavaBaron (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I added the cookbook as a reference and added it to the list of publications.Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
FYI, here's a RS from KSL-TV that seems to confirm the book exists. [2] LavaBaron (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that reference. I also added it as a source. Have we reached a consensus on this article yet? Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC) LavaBaron EdChem Ritchie333
@Ritchie333: I have not objected to promotion, I just pointed to some details on the cook book. Given his restrictions, I would not be comfortable giving a tick if I was LavaBaron (given the target on his back). I suggest you either re-tick with concerns addressed or call for an independent look at WT:DYK. @Amgisseman(BYU): FYI, this isn't really about your article. LavaBaron is being understandably over-cautious after a recent mauling over mistakes which was made worse by a group that does not like the DYK project. Sorry, but DYK has promoted material which did not belong on the main page (and been rightly criticised for it) but some criticisms are more aimed at editors and participants; consequently, some nominations get a deeper examination and it's not necessarily because it has issues that warrant it. Please try not to take the delay personally. EdChem (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed to see whether the sourcing concerns raised have been adequately addressed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Based on my reading of the above conversation, it seems as if another reviewer is only required to check the specific sourcing issue, which I can confirm to be resolved. If in fact a full review is required, please let me know. LavaBaron: since you found the source yourself, I'm assuming it addresses your concern? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Annette_Lyon&oldid=750695137"