Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/CitizenShipper

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: rejected by Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Closing as the nominator hasn't edited since 11 August

DYK toolbox

CitizenShipper

[edit]
(
)

Created by Frieda Beamy (talk). Self nominated at 17:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC).

  • New enough. Long enough. QPQ done. Looking at the first source, Dup detector shows "people in need of shipping services with drivers haulers and transporters" in source and article. Checking two other main sources reveals no other significant close paraphrasing or copyvios. Well-cited. The hook is cited, but it would be better to have a link to the official DoT site as well as Escrow.com stating this to be the case. And I've reversed the order of the last two words in the hook - the trucks are empty, not the routes. I've also softened "connects" to "aims to connect", as I believe this is more accurate. I'm not keen on ALT1, as I imagine the plan is to make money, and carbon reductions are just a by-product. Bearing in mind that this article appears to be paid-for work (a fact that I feel should be more explicitly declared), this sort of greenwashing is not NPOV. Edwardx (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Hook changes are fine. I rewrote the lead due to duping (there's always a fine line between avoiding duping and failing verification). I added a DOT source for the 29% sentence, although that might add "single-unit" as describing "truck" in either hook to be pedantic; the source uses 29% from 2007 and regards the number as still valid in Dec 2011. I don't intend to greenwash and so have looked for sentences to tone down as well, and I hope that answers any POV. Though the reviewer regarded it as ad-like during the rush to remove AFC backlog, that person reversed immediately upon a second glance through; I believe it properly reflects the sources.
    • As to paid-for work, this article was mostly done before the new terms of use, but I had already disclosed on my userpage, and later disclosed on article talk. To restate the disclosure more specifically, the person I work for is myself; then, I don't distinguish which article subjects are clients and which aren't because it's easier for others to just regard all article subjects as clients and affiliations and to judge the text as they wish. This seems to fit the new terms and what people have said about them; I want to keep within all the guidelines old and new. It does look like I've edited a lot of mainspace, because I edited drafts before they were promoted; but after promotion I only edit obvious balance items like fulfilling requests (such as right now). I have also linked each known article in the industry to the see alsos of the others, and am making improvements to the other articles as well to keep the whole topic area balanced. If there's anything else I need to answer I'll be happy to. Frieda Beamy (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Frieda Beamy (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Plus it is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CitizenShipper Edwardx (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
It was I who nominated it for afd as hopelessly promotional. I notice that the very hook is promotional. That someone claims to have a plan to reduce .... is not encyclopedic. Should he succeed in doing so, that would be a suitable hook DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
That's understandable; I have proposed in AFD that the topic be moved to Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and so I think it would be within DYK rules to wait some days on this move proposal and then see if ALT0 or a new hook would suffice. Frieda Beamy (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus for a shorter version appears to have been reached at AFD. Original hook ALT0 is still good. Instead of ALT1 we could say:

But if you wait a couple days I hope to have an even better hook. Frieda Beamy (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • For DYK, while an article is at AfD, its nomination is put on hold. There shouldn't be any call for further review here until the AfD has been closed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The article has been through AFD now, achieving a resounding "no consensus". My problem with it is that it has been written as a commission and, thus, putting it on the main page is free advertising. The flip side is, of course, that we advertise things all the time (movies, tv programmes, restaurants, businesses, books, music) and don't have a problem with it because they aren't paid-for articles (as far as we know), and so if we don't put this on the main page then editors working on commissioned pieces have no incentive to identify their DYK nominations as commissioned work. It would be good if this nomination was withdrawn by the author to prevent us having to think about it (until next time; I'm a big fan of expediency and brushing stuff under the carpet). Belle (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggest closing as the nominator hasn't edited since 11 August. Belle (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/CitizenShipper&oldid=623085218"