Template:Did you know nominations/Beatriz Ferrer-Salat
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Beatriz Ferrer-Salat
[edit]- ... that Beatriz Ferrer-Salat is the "most successful dressage rider" in Spanish history?
Created by Dana boomer (talk). Self nominated at 19:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC).
very nice. all looks good. PumpkinSky talk 21:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I find the hook to be too... subjective maybe?... for the main page. For example, I might argue that José Navarro Morenes was more successful, having won gold and silver at the Olympics (and 20 years apart at that!). Perhaps a slight tweak like "... that Beatriz Ferrer-Salat has been referred to as the "most successful dressage rider" in Spanish history?" might be more appropriate/in line with WP:NPOV? Canadian Paul 22:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- But Morenes was a show-jumper...??? And, as the phrase is in quotation marks, rather than in Wikipedia's voice, I would think it obvious that this is a quote of how someone else described her, rather than a conclusion that Wikipedia came to. Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oops, for some reason I kept reading "dressage" as "equestrian". My bad. But I still don't seem the harm in making it 100% clear with a little extra addition. Just an observation, I don't really care either way, but I thought it could use an extra pair of eyes. Canadian Paul 00:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- But Morenes was a show-jumper...??? And, as the phrase is in quotation marks, rather than in Wikipedia's voice, I would think it obvious that this is a quote of how someone else described her, rather than a conclusion that Wikipedia came to. Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- The hook says what the ref says, perhaps add "according to..." to the hook. PumpkinSky talk 01:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think that "according to..." would just be adding trivia. If we have to add a qualifier, I'd prefer CanadianPaul's suggestion. I personally don't think either are necessary (if a reader has questions, they can go to the article, which is kind of the point of a DYK), but if others disagree, I won't be upset. Preference for the "has been referred to as...", if anything is added. Dana boomer (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Eh, I didn't mean to stir up any bother, I just happened to be reviewing this while PumpkinSky was, and the above was going to be my comment, but PS ended up posting first. I probably shouldn't have posted it, maybe I just wanted to get the thought out or something. Anyways, a third person has looked at it and disagrees, so that's good enough for me. No sense in wasting everyone's time holding things up here. Canadian Paul 04:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, more eyes and thoughts are always good. Dana boomer (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think that "according to..." would just be adding trivia. If we have to add a qualifier, I'd prefer CanadianPaul's suggestion. I personally don't think either are necessary (if a reader has questions, they can go to the article, which is kind of the point of a DYK), but if others disagree, I won't be upset. Preference for the "has been referred to as...", if anything is added. Dana boomer (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
