Template:Did you know nominations/Emily Willingham
- 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 Allen3 talk 15:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Emily Willingham
[edit]- ... that Emily Willingham, a biologist from Texas, was called "one of the sharpest science writers in the blogosphere" by Steve Silberman?
Created by Jinkinson (talk). Self nominated at 19:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC).
- A small article that is long enough, and new enough QPQ not required as this is users second (If my count is correct), I'm not seeing any grammatical issues. No Copyvios this looks
good to me!--SKATER Speak. 08:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 
Hook format is correct, and appears in the article, was about to promote this but noticed this hook fact is cited solely to a blog site. Second opinion please as to whether this is sufficiently reliable for a BLP item (although the claim is uncontroversial)? Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 16:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- The reason I accepted it was because it was the blog by the person in question, so there really wasn't anything to dispute.--SKATER T a l k 02:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, here's my opinion: No, it's not a good enough source. The important distinction here is not between blogs and things printed on paper, it's between self-published sources and sources for which there's some level of editorial control between the writer and the readers. This particular blog is one of the PLOS Blog Network, about which its host writes "PLOS does not screen, edit, or otherwise meddle with content on the these blogs in any way." To me that indicates a self-published source which would be usable for factual information but not opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Why isn't a blog post written by Steve Silberman considered a reliable source for the fact that Steve Silberman has expressed a certain opinion? (BTW, this article's bare urls need fixing per supplementary rule D3.) DoctorKubla (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, here's my opinion: No, it's not a good enough source. The important distinction here is not between blogs and things printed on paper, it's between self-published sources and sources for which there's some level of editorial control between the writer and the readers. This particular blog is one of the PLOS Blog Network, about which its host writes "PLOS does not screen, edit, or otherwise meddle with content on the these blogs in any way." To me that indicates a self-published source which would be usable for factual information but not opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- A small article that is long enough, and new enough QPQ not required as this is users second (If my count is correct), I'm not seeing any grammatical issues. No Copyvios this looks
Bare urls have been fixed. — Maile (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- New enough, long enough, neutral, no copyvio, hook is sourced. The blog post is a reliable source for the blogger's opinion, described in the article and hook as an opinion. There is no doubt that Silberman expressed that opinion. The blog would not be a reliable source for facts. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
