Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Guerrero

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 BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 21:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Diane Guerrero

[edit]
(
)

Created/expanded by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 22:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

  • New enough. Long enough. Good hook which is well-cited, as is the article. NPOV. QPQ looks almost finished. All sources are online, and no close paraphrasing or copyvios found. Only one small issue - article states "(born c. 1987)" - for a BLP, I'd expect to see a citation for that. Edwardx (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have sources saying she was 27 on such and such a date or 24 on such and such a date. With all the dates that she was certain ages, we can narrow her birthdate down to a range. I am not sure that is what we want. She is a rising star (sort of) and I am sure her actual birthdate will be readily available soon.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Considering the current uncertainty about her age/dob and that it is a BLP, perhaps the easiest solution is just to drop "(born c. 1987)" altogether. Then I'd be happy to sign it off. Unlinked Colombia. Edwardx (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Edwardx, It has been a week. I guess it is not going to be added. I think we should include what we know, which is an approximate date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What we know is that as of June 5, Daily News says she was 27. This implies she was born between June 6, 1986 and June 5 1987. Giving a c. 1987 birth date is reasonable. Other content in the article says that she moved to NYC in 2011 at age 24, also pointing to c. 1987. I think the reader is better off with an approximate age than none at all.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that our readers would like to know her age, and I'm okay to go with "born c. 1987" or "born 1986/87", but it still needs a citation. Then I can give it a tick! Edwardx (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Now good to go. Edwardx (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Pulled from prep per this discussion at TDYK:

I'm a bit concerned about Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Diane_Guerrero, now in prep. The hook is that the subject's parents and brother were deported from the US. That's certain OK for the article, but isn't it a little bit invasive to trumpet this fact, which is really about three people other than the subject, on MP? I'm not saying it's a pull, but I thought this point should be given some thought. No doubt there are lots of other good hooks we could use. (I wouldn't be saying this if the hook was e.g. "... that the deportation of three of her family members inspired The Subject to write her biggest hit song?" or some other direct tie-in.) EEng (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"She is notable for having overcome the deportation of the rest of her family when she was a teenager" is unsourced (either directly or anywhere else in the article) so it is not eligible for DYK anyway. Needs pulling. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Or, you know, simply removing the sentence from the lede and adding an RS that supports the claim (i.e. this) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but look at what's happened. I was worried about the propriety of the hook even if it's verifiable. Then someone else says it doesn't seem to be, in fact, verifiable. At that point, we're done as far as this hook being included in any set. None of us should be trying to figure this out on the fly, especially since this is a BLP. There are plenty of other hooks to use. The nom should be reopened and the issue addressed. I'll check now and if no one else has pulled it I will, and copy this discussion to the nom page. EEng (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
What on earth is supposed to be the problem here? Crisco1492 removed the stupid sentence about being "notable for having overcome the deportation" from the article lede and he added a second reliable source (HuffPost) about the deportation (it was already supported by footnotes to the New York Daily News). Guerrero has been all over the media talking about her family's deportation as a defining event in her life and calling for reform in U.S. immigration laws (in addition to the sources listed, examples include [1], [2], [3], and [4]). This is an interesting hook and there's no indication that any of the affected persons are ashamed about the deportation. Indeed, the only party that needs to be embarrassed about the deportation is the U.S. government. EEng should return this to the prep area, with apologies to the other volunteers whose time he has wasted by creating needless drama. (The approval tick is still intact, so at least the tick isn't an issue.) --Orlady (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with Orlady, I don't see a problem with the hook, it doesn't reflect badly upon the subject and it's both important and interesting. I don't think it can be called "invasive" when the subject herself brings it up in the media as a seminal experience in her life. Also, I verified the hook in prep last night and as Orlady said, it was already sourced in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
My point is that the hook is really a statement not about the subject, but her relatives. I'm not sure whether that's a problem -- I raised it for discussion, after which someone pointed out an apparent problem with the sourcing. EEng (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I originally raised this on TDYK, without pulling, because I was uncertain about the privacy issue. Then someone pointed out a sourcing problem, so I pulled the hook from prep and reopened the discussion here -- this is a BLP. If the sourcing problem is fixed or wasn't there in the first place, great -- but there's the privacy issue, which -- again -- I originally wanted to just point out for discussion. If that doesn't bother people I'm fine with that. EEng (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the sourcing problem that was identified on the talk page wasn't actually a case of bad sourcing. The information was in the cited online source, but apparently was overlooked (possibly because of ads and other clutter in the online source). It's time for the user who pulled the hook to return this to a prep area, with apologies. --Orlady (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
according to this edit EEng is the user who pulled the hook. There seems to be agreement that it should be restored.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Anyone other than the article creator/nominator and reviewer(s) could put this into a prep area. Given the chaos that EEng has been creating in DYK recently, I think he owes it to us to undo his error on this one -- and apologize. --Orlady (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - that would be a nice gesture from EEng. Edwardx (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
EEng is clearly Editing the queues while ignoring this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Well then Crisco will need to give his assent before this nom can be approved. Gatoclass (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, the new sentence is fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Diane_Guerrero&oldid=1021427515"