Template:Did you know nominations/Jeremy McMullen
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Jeremy McMullen
[edit]- ... that British barrister Jeremy McMullen represented Dame Shirley Porter and the miners' leader Arthur Scargill?
Created/expanded by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 22:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC).
The article is long enough (more than 5x expansion), neutral, and free of copyright violations (the image is fair-use, and AGF on the offline newspaper article citations), but I'm not sure it meets the new enough criteria, as expansion seems to have begun May 26, while it was nominated June 3rd (8 days later). Additionally, I don't see the nominator's QPQ, only one of the contributor's on Coffee production in Democratic Republic of the Congo. I have no qualms about stretching the 7 day deadline if that's ok with others, but finally the hook seems rather dry (at least to people unfamiliar with McMullen, Porter, and/or Scargill)- are these two people radically different enough that it would be noteworthy for the same person to represent them both over the course of a career? I would propose a more interesting hook with broader appeal, e.g.:
- ALT1 ... that British barrister Jeremy McMullen, an expert in labour law, also rowed with the Putney Town Rowing Club and in the Vogalonga regatta? --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Surely it only matters that a review was done that is only used once, here. That is why we have the rule so that each nomination results in one review of another article. Yes they are quite different, Porter was a Conservative Party politician (on the right) and Scargill was a militant trade union leader of the far left (IMHO). But I agree that may have little resonance outside of the U.K. Sorry, but the Alt is not interesting at all. We need to put our thinking caps on here. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not a regular DYK reviewer, I was just reading the criteria at the top of the editing page: "all nominators who have five or more DYK credits must review another article." I welcome additional hooks. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, the obit mentions a bubble gum factory strike, that's something you don't hear of everyday. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I will see what I can come up with. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not a regular DYK reviewer, I was just reading the criteria at the top of the editing page: "all nominators who have five or more DYK credits must review another article." I welcome additional hooks. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that despite his view that those that administered the law were "unrepresentative and out of touch", British trade unionist Jeremy McMullen went on to become a high court judge? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- ALT3 ... that British trade unionist and barrister Jeremy McMullen fought for trade union recognition at the Chix bubble gum factory? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Be reasonable, it's only one day late. There has already been a fair amount of volunteer effort expended on the nomination, including a review and a QPQ. What's the point of killing it now? How is that in the interest of the project? Philafrenzy (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- Almost all the work has been done. Why waste it now? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- What evidence is there of an "extensive backlog"? If you are going to object because the nom was one day late, then you really should have done so before all this effort was expended. Sorry, but your objection looks a bit petty now. Edwardx (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's a bit unfair Edwardx, since I don't participate often at DYK and I don't watch this page. I wasn't aware of this article and its nomination until I reviewed it today. I am a neutral reviewer of the article and have no personal agenda here. Please be civil. As for all that work... wasn't it worth it for the sake of the article itself? I don't think there has been any waisted effort even it it doesn't get approved at DYK. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- The work I was thinking of was that of others, especially User:Animalparty, in the DYK review process and in suggesting alternative hooks. If Animalparty was okay with the nom being slightly late, then how can you reasonably object? Edwardx (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's a bit unfair Edwardx, since I don't participate often at DYK and I don't watch this page. I wasn't aware of this article and its nomination until I reviewed it today. I am a neutral reviewer of the article and have no personal agenda here. Please be civil. As for all that work... wasn't it worth it for the sake of the article itself? I don't think there has been any waisted effort even it it doesn't get approved at DYK. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- How could there not be wasted effort? It took me an hour and 24 edits to review Coffee production in Democratic Republic of the Congo, only done for the sake of this nomination, and that review is not finished yet. Then there is the preparation of the nomination, Animalparty's review and all the discussion above including the Alts. I don't know what you have done on DYK before, not much you say, but I think you are being a bit casual with other people's time. It's unreasonable to kill a nomination this far in. We routinely allow a small leeway over the time limit because there are usually far older nominations that have not been reviewed at all. Please withdraw and strike your cross. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- What evidence is there of an "extensive backlog"? If you are going to object because the nom was one day late, then you really should have done so before all this effort was expended. Sorry, but your objection looks a bit petty now. Edwardx (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's obvious I've stirred up some drama unintentionally. If another editor chooses to promote the article, I won't object. But I still think there is a backlog at DYK with well over 300 article submissions, and for that reason we shouldn't be promoting articles that are submitted late. Reviewers have stated this in the past, and I myself once had an article rejected for being nominated a day late when there was a backlog. Again, I see no time waisted as reviewing at DYK is beneficial whether you get a DYK or not. Is it necessary to get a DYK for improving wikipedia to be worth your time? Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Having read more about the politics, I think that the primary hook is good to go. As I said earlier, I'm fine with stretching the rules by one day. I think moving hooks to the queue is the best way to clear the backlog. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
