Template:Did you know nominations/Cumulus Corporation
- 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 RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Cumulus Corporation
- ... that a company sued computer manufacturer Cumulus Corporation over alleged unpaid T-shirts? Source: Thompson, Chris (September 28, 1992). "3 Creditors Sue Cumulus". Crain's Cleveland Business. Crain Communications. 13 (39): 1 – via ProQuest.
Created by DigitalIceAge (talk). Self-nominated at 05:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC).
- hello, DigitalIceAge! this will be my fourth dyk review, so apologies if i end up making any errors. any suggestions or advice is welcome.
- general: article is new enough and long enough.
- policy: article is sourced and neutral. earwig shows nothing of concern.
- qpq: not yet provided.
- hooks: hook is under 200 characters, interesting, cited, and neutral. i am assuming good faith regarding the source available on proquest.
- points outside of the dyk criteria:
- i think "PROM" could be linked to "Programmable ROM", if appropriate.
Done 18:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- a footnote or abbr template could help explain the "LIM" in "LIM EMS".
- Done 18:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- a metric equivalent for "three square inches" may be useful for readers unaccustomed with square inches.
- Done 18:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- since the corporation renamed itself to "Cumulus Computer Corporation" in 1990, would it be more accurate to use that name in the blurb? to keep the hook short, the "computer" in "computer manufacturer" can be dropped. alternatively, i can also understand if the shorter name is being used because it is the common name.
- i think "PROM" could be linked to "Programmable ROM", if appropriate.
awaiting qpq. dying (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, @Dying:! QPQ done. Will address the other stuff shortly. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- forgive me for being unfamiliar with the standards of dyk, but since it looks like both you and Aoidh completed full reviews of the article on ossian d'ambrosio, does this mean that both of you receive a qpq credit each for the reviews? i ask because Aoidh has already used the first review as a qpq credit in the nomination for eyes of buddha. dying (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Dying: IANAL but it looks like per rule #5 of WP:DYKCRIT, nominations can be used to fulfill the QPQ requirements for more than one user, as long as each one addressed all of the five main criteria (length, newness, neutrality/paraphrasing, hook fact, QPQ). DigitalIceAge (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- forgive me for being unfamiliar with the standards of dyk, but since it looks like both you and Aoidh completed full reviews of the article on ossian d'ambrosio, does this mean that both of you receive a qpq credit each for the reviews? i ask because Aoidh has already used the first review as a qpq credit in the nomination for eyes of buddha. dying (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Dying: I have added the suggested fixes to the article, and I agree with your idea for a revised hook:
- ALT0b: ... that a company sued Cumulus Computer Corporation over alleged unpaid T-shirts?
- Let me know if that reads better. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- DigitalIceAge, i also anal, but i just noticed that rule 5 was amended about three days ago to state that "only full reviews with no reliable predecessors count as a QPQ". as you commendably tackled an article that had been barely addressed for over a month, i think you deserve to have the review count as a qpq credit, but because i believe the previous review had counted as a "reliable predecessor", i think your review technically does not qualify. as this is only my fourth dyk review, i hesitate to use iar here. should i request help from another editor to make the call? alternatively, i can raise the issue on the dyk talk page.aside from this, everything else looks good, and i would approve alt0b. thanks for addressing the other issues! dying (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Dying: Very weird! But I guess I have another QPQ to finish... DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Dying: Okay, so I don't know what the hell a "reliable predecessor" means in terms of DYK reviews, so I did Four Epigraphs after Escher which is a fresh nomination. @Theleekycauldron: can you clarify what "reliable predecessor" means? I looked at the DYK talk page and archives but it all makes me go wall-eyed. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- @DigitalIceAge: funnily enough, I was just looking at this nom two minutes ago – almost jumped in, and then I thought better of it. As an example, the predecessor review on Template:Did you know nominations/Ossian D'Ambrosio was Aoidh's initial review – it's a reliable predecessor because the validity of the review wasn't challenged. When you jumped in, there was no need to redo the parts of the review Aoidh had already checked off; if you had said that the sourcing issues for the article and hook had been resolved, you could have given the article a tick while "relying" on Aoidh's initial review for the parts not in controversy. By contrast, sometimes articles get so screwed up during the feedback-and-update process that the previous review isn't very helpful in assessing the current state of the article. If the article has gone through enough change (and this is pretty much a gut feel thing, honestly, so leeway can be given), another user might jump in and just do a completely new review, and that might be warranted. In that case, they would get QPQ credit. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Thanks, that makes sense. Is it a temporary thing to reduce the backlog or is it permanent (barring new consensus)? I prefer reviewing the oldest nominations, both as a personal challenge to untwist the pretzel of discussions that caused it to lag for so long, and because I've had a couple nominations lag myself and I feel for other nominator's impatience. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- @DigitalIceAge: permanent barring new consensus, although I do see your point – maybe you want to leave a note at WT:DYK? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- DigitalIceAge, looks good, thanks! sorry about not being able to use the first review as a qpq credit. not all credit comes in the form of qpqs, though. hopefully i'll get enough experience one day to follow your example and tackle some of the older nominations myself.theleekycauldron, for future reference, if an article is significantly revised during the dyk process, then do both the initial full review and the eventual full review that approves the nomination each award one qpq credit because they are both "full reviews with no reliable predecessors", or does only the final review get credited? dying (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- @DigitalIceAge: permanent barring new consensus, although I do see your point – maybe you want to leave a note at WT:DYK? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Thanks, that makes sense. Is it a temporary thing to reduce the backlog or is it permanent (barring new consensus)? I prefer reviewing the oldest nominations, both as a personal challenge to untwist the pretzel of discussions that caused it to lag for so long, and because I've had a couple nominations lag myself and I feel for other nominator's impatience. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- @DigitalIceAge: funnily enough, I was just looking at this nom two minutes ago – almost jumped in, and then I thought better of it. As an example, the predecessor review on Template:Did you know nominations/Ossian D'Ambrosio was Aoidh's initial review – it's a reliable predecessor because the validity of the review wasn't challenged. When you jumped in, there was no need to redo the parts of the review Aoidh had already checked off; if you had said that the sourcing issues for the article and hook had been resolved, you could have given the article a tick while "relying" on Aoidh's initial review for the parts not in controversy. By contrast, sometimes articles get so screwed up during the feedback-and-update process that the previous review isn't very helpful in assessing the current state of the article. If the article has gone through enough change (and this is pretty much a gut feel thing, honestly, so leeway can be given), another user might jump in and just do a completely new review, and that might be warranted. In that case, they would get QPQ credit. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- DigitalIceAge, i also anal, but i just noticed that rule 5 was amended about three days ago to state that "only full reviews with no reliable predecessors count as a QPQ". as you commendably tackled an article that had been barely addressed for over a month, i think you deserve to have the review count as a qpq credit, but because i believe the previous review had counted as a "reliable predecessor", i think your review technically does not qualify. as this is only my fourth dyk review, i hesitate to use iar here. should i request help from another editor to make the call? alternatively, i can raise the issue on the dyk talk page.aside from this, everything else looks good, and i would approve alt0b. thanks for addressing the other issues! dying (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, @Dying:! QPQ done. Will address the other stuff shortly. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
