Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Giacomo Sartori

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 SL93 (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Giacomo Sartori

(
)

Created by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 16:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC).

  • I will start this review momentarily. Ktin (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article meets eligibility criteria - length and newness. Will require a relook at sourcing -- while sentences are sourced, many of them are sourced to the author's profile on the book publisher's webpage, his own Linkedin page. I am asking another editor / reviewer's assistance to help have a relook. No major copyvios to be seen. The phrase has since published seven novels and four collections of short stories can be considered for revision since it is used as-is from Restlessbooks. Hook is cited and interesting. However, hook is again sourced the author's page on the publisher webpage. Will require another Editor's eyes on this one. Request to the nominator -- In addition, can you think about a rewrite of the lede. Please see if you can avoid narrative style and go for a declarative style. E.g. He is an author of x books including A, B, and C, rather than "Sartori, who began writing in his thirties, has since published ...". I would also suggest reconsidering phrases such as 'positive reviews' in the lede. QPQ not required since the editor has only DYK published so far. However, if this is not accurate, please let me know. Overall, I think this is a good nomination, but, might require a relook. I am requesting for another reviewer's support on this one. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, @Ktin! I'm cutting down on the relevant predominance of the author bio a bit. The LinkedIn cite is to support some uncontroversial biographical information, which I've always taken as an acceptable use of that kind of source (and is explicitly called out as "can be a valid reason to use discouraged sources" on Cite Unseen); post-revision, the author bio is mostly the same. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: Thanks. Let me know when the edits are done, and I can pick it up. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ktin: Been a while, but how do you feel about how the article is currently set up? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: Looks good. Added one [citation needed] tag. Good to go once that is fixed. Ktin (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ktin: Cited. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Approved. Looks good. Ktin (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Came by to promote, but I'm uncomfortable with the hook assertion being sourced to his publisher. I think we need a new hook. —valereee (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If a new hook is needed, then adding icon indicating that there's an issue holding up promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I'm pretty tired of this process. I have half a mind to entirely withdraw this hook and the I Am God hook. I don't know that I want to commit to it, but I don't exactly feel motivated to come up with a new one. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The hook seems fine to me. jp×g 18:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
The hook seems mostly okay but I don't know if it's appropriate to include the word "unusual" in it. I understand the word is in the article, but still. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
ALT1: * ... that author Giacomo Sartori's day job as a soil scientist has been named as an influence on his work? Source: Restless Books: Giacomo Sartori
@Narutolovehinata5: Is this fine? jp×g 19:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good since the word "unusual" was my only concern. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Pinging valereee to see whether her hook concern has been addressed. If not, perhaps another suggestion could be made? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Possible alternate hook: ALT2 ... that Giacomo Sartori's autofictional work The Anatomy of the Battle was based on his relationship with his father and their political conflicts? It's cited to this link which is an English translation of an Italian interview. If an article could be written for the book, maybe this could work as a double hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Prefer ALT2 as ALT1 is still sourced to his publisher. [[User:|—valereee]] (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ktin: The new hooks still need a check. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I am a tad confused with ALT2. What does "their political conflicts" mean? Father son political conflicts? Not sure I am seeing that at this link. [1] Please let me know if I am missing something. Been a long day. Also, I am not even seeing a direct statement that it was based on the relationship with his father, though, I think that can be easier to establish. Appreciate your inputs. Ktin (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ktin: The paragraph in question seems to be the one that starts with In the initial plan, this novel was only meant to be the story of the last phases of my father’s illness when he died of a tumor in the last year of the last century. But then in the process of writing, the importance of his previous existence and especially of his fascist training became evident, even just in order to understand his behavior during his illness. The whole paragraph doesn't seem to explicitly say "political conflicts" but it does seem to confirm that the novel was partly based on the father's political beliefs. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for this one. I am on the fence on this one. Should we just clip the hook at the first part? i.e. stop at "was based on his relationship with his father" Ktin (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
It probably still needs the mention of the political views somewhere, even if "political conflicts" isn't the best term. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ktin: Okay, how does this sound:
  • I tried including the relationship angle here but it was difficult without making the hook redundant or vague. Another possibility could just be ALT2 without the political beliefs angle, which goes:
  • @Maile66: For what it's worth, I found an independent source that mentions him being a soil scientist; would using this as a source address your original concern? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Did you mean Valereee? — Maile (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Whoops! Apologies for the wrong ping. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, that source is fine to create a hook from, but which of the ALTs does it support? —valereee (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: ALT1. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I'm sorry, the review was long, but I thought I read it carefully enough, but I may have been hurrying too mcuh...that review mentions his job, but I didn't see that it said it influenced his literary work? —valereee (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: The reason why I pinged you is to ask if the New Republic source satisfies your concerns about the original source for the soil scientist hook fact being a primary one. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I wasn't concerned about the "soil scientist" assertion. That's a noncontroversial fact that I would have accepted even from a self-source, although "unusual" probably shouldn't come from an affiliated source. But that word could just be removed; it's the assertion that it "influenced his work" that I don't like sourced to an affiliated source. Someone not affiliated with him needs to be talking about it, IMO. —valereee (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: Perhaps ALT5 ... that Italian novelist Giacomo Sartori is a soil scientist by profession? could work if the issue is the fact about it being an influence in his work. Otherwise, if the soil scientist angle isn't working out, we could always go with one of the other options (like the ones about the relationship). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, that would work for me! Maybe a link to soil scientist? —valereee (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee:  Done Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5, please can I request a uninvolved editor to help with the review. Certain off-wiki / IRL activities have come up that is making it very difficult for me to look at this one for the next week at least. Tagging a few kind folks to see if one of them can help. Valereee, The Rambling Man, Amakuru, and SL93. Thanks everyone. Ktin (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm an uninvolved editor as requested. The source says "I have scientific training, or more specifically, techno-scientific, since I’m an agronomist. What fascinates me about science is the thirst for discovery, for finding answers to unresolved queries. This doesn’t apply solely to the great geniuses as someone outside of science might suppose, since even the humblest researcher knows the thrill of grappling with problems still in process, of entering untrodden territory. ". Alt0 is fine. Why don't we just agree with the original assessment? Both the author and his publisher think that being a soil scientist is important, I'm willing to take their word for it. If someone could find a source that says that he is not influenced by his day job ... then that would surprise me. That is my view ... and like the nominator I'm not up for a long discussion on this... I'm just offering the requested view. Victuallers (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Ummm @Ktin: you asked for help? Victuallers (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Ktin mentioned that they will be unable to review this, so a new reviewer is still needed. @Victuallers: Will you be willing to review this in their stead? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
sure, summarising ref and the above for Alt0. Victuallers (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Giacomo_Sartori&oldid=1018523047"