Template:Did you know nominations/Laura Wright (academic)
- 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: rejected by feminist (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Laura Wright (academic)
[edit]- ... that Laura Wright created a new academic field, vegan studies, in 2015 when she wrote The Vegan Studies Project? "The presence and legitimacy of 'vegan studies' within the academic world, especially since Wright cared to formalize the expression and define a paradigm, is something that should no longer require an explanation or a justification," and that she "coined the expression".here
- ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
Created by Valereee (talk). Self-nominated at 17:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC).
- Valereee - the hook has a red link in it, that's not allowed in Main Page content. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- MPJ-DK yes, I know -- I didn't want to let it age past its expy date. The other article is in draft and being actively worked on. I'm expecting that by the time someone starts this review the link will no longer be red. Sorry, I intended to come in here and mention this when I nom'd but got distracted and forgot. valereee (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Instead of saying that she "created a new academic field, vegan studies,", something like "coined the term "vegan studies"" would be less likely to be scrutinized. Echoing the issue with the red link in the hook: if Draft:Vegan studies is not ready yet by the time this gets promoted the link should be removed. Alternatively you can request that this article not be promoted until that article is ready.
Regarding the article, I'd probably remove the word "numerous" from the Awards section, and citations should be added to the Bibliography section. Otherwise, the article is new enough, long enough, and within policy, the hook is long enough and interesting to a broad audience, and a review has been performed. feminist (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Feminist Thanks for starting the review! Oh, totally, didn't know I could request that the article be not promoted! How do I do that? Happy to make those changes, will ping when I've completed. valereee (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, it's not formal, but as a form of courtesy DYK usually allows scheduling for special occasions (as long as it's not too far into the future) or for other valid reasons. Still, given the large number of articles on Template talk:Did you know/Approved, it will be quite a while from an article being approved and it being promoted to the Queue. feminist (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- My point regarding the hook means I propose changing the hook to ALT1: ... that Laura Wright coined the term "vegan studies" in 2015 when she wrote The Vegan Studies Project? feminist (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- ALT1:... that Laura Wright coined the term "vegan studies" in 2015 when she wrote The Vegan Studies Project? Source: Martinelli and Berkmaniene said "The presence and legitimacy of 'vegan studies' within the academic world, especially since Wright cared to formalize the expression and define a paradigm, is something that should no longer require an explanation or a justification," and that she "coined the expression".here
- Feminist I believe I've addressed your concerns; let me know if I missed something. I'd appreciate it if we didn't promote this until the article that's in draft gets through AfC, but if it takes too long I'll remove the wikilink. valereee (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just noticed another problem. I checked the provided article (I have access to it), and it does not mention "The Vegan Studies Project". In fact it attributes Wright coining the expression "vegan studies" to Vegan studies. Food, animals and gender in the age of terror. It seems to refer to the same book, but some editors may be picky on this. A possible solution would be to remove the title of her book from the hook, and just mention "in her 2015 book?" in the hook.
- Actually, is there any reason why Draft:Vegan studies has not yet been moved to mainspace? It looks good enough to me at a first glance, and having an article is better for readers than no article. feminist (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Feminist I believe I've addressed your concerns; let me know if I missed something. I'd appreciate it if we didn't promote this until the article that's in draft gets through AfC, but if it takes too long I'll remove the wikilink. valereee (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- feminist Yeah, it's the same book, but I'm surprised that source doesn't have the title right and that if they didn't, that I missed it, as I have (or at least had -- I'll have to track it down again) access also -- full book title is 'The Vegan Studies Project: Food, Animals and Gender in the Age of Terror which I thought was a bit long for a DYK so used just the main title instead of including the subtitle. I have no objection to not mentioning the name of it as a way to resolve the issue. Re: the draft -- long story, lol. A COI (Laura Wright) came into a user talk page, declared her COI, and asked for help in developing the article on vegan studies, which as a new field was missing from the encyclopedia. Because of the COI issue, we're all being very careful to try to make sure the article is written absolutely neutrally, multiple editors are checking and rechecking sources and combing the net for additional sources, exact wording and section order is being debated. Complicating the issue is that Wright is brand new to WP editing, which of course is very different from academic writing. I think we're getting close. valereee (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Huh, yep -- not easily refinding the entire article, but I see that their references section has it wrong, which is odd. I'm guessing when I read the article I only read the part where the book/Wright were discussed and didn't read the book's entry in the refs section. I'm open to any solution. valereee (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that Laura Wright coined the term "vegan studies" in her 2015 book? feminist (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Huh, yep -- not easily refinding the entire article, but I see that their references section has it wrong, which is odd. I'm guessing when I read the article I only read the part where the book/Wright were discussed and didn't read the book's entry in the refs section. I'm open to any solution. valereee (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
- Willing to review this, but for now I'd just like to point out for now that vegan studies is currently a red link. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 For now I'm asking to put the nomination on hold, as I don't know when the redlinked article, which is currently in draft, will move to article space. I'm happy to consider other solutions, too, if we decide it's taking too long. valereee (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Valereee: One possible option is to simply go with ALT2 but leaving out the link. Another thought I had could be to discuss her academic background, contrasting how she does both food studies and postcolonial studies; as a social scientist myself, the contrast between the two seems quirky to be honest. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: That's very interesting! I would have thought that 'vegan studies' would raise more general-reader interest than any intersection between food studies/post colonial studies, just because it was kind of different and maybe surprising. I'd be happy to leave out the link, though, too, as a solution. valereee (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, so it seems we have two options here; ALT2a (i.e. simply unlinking "vegan studies") or ALT3 (which would be about the food and post-colonial studies thing). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I was going to say let's go with your suggestion of an ALT built around food/postcolonial and then I remembered that the source of that information is the university website, so affiliated, probably a no-go here. I don't believe any other academics have remarked on the combo of interests. Removing the link probably doesn't solve the concerns of one of the editors at the draft, who is concerned using the term in the DYK would cause someone to try to develop a second draft of that article, which she has spent many hours trying to whip into shape. I think if we don't want to put the nom on hold, probably we just need to pull it. valereee (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, primary sources being used as reference for hook facts isn't prohibited, and in fact is fairly common. The only thing that's not allowed is promotional content, and I don't think the source counts as one in this case. As for the draft concerns, you don't need to create the vegan studies article for this hook; someone else could write it later on and then nominate that for DYK if necessary. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I was going to say let's go with your suggestion of an ALT built around food/postcolonial and then I remembered that the source of that information is the university website, so affiliated, probably a no-go here. I don't believe any other academics have remarked on the combo of interests. Removing the link probably doesn't solve the concerns of one of the editors at the draft, who is concerned using the term in the DYK would cause someone to try to develop a second draft of that article, which she has spent many hours trying to whip into shape. I think if we don't want to put the nom on hold, probably we just need to pull it. valereee (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, so it seems we have two options here; ALT2a (i.e. simply unlinking "vegan studies") or ALT3 (which would be about the food and post-colonial studies thing). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: That's very interesting! I would have thought that 'vegan studies' would raise more general-reader interest than any intersection between food studies/post colonial studies, just because it was kind of different and maybe surprising. I'd be happy to leave out the link, though, too, as a solution. valereee (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Valereee: One possible option is to simply go with ALT2 but leaving out the link. Another thought I had could be to discuss her academic background, contrasting how she does both food studies and postcolonial studies; as a social scientist myself, the contrast between the two seems quirky to be honest. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 For now I'm asking to put the nomination on hold, as I don't know when the redlinked article, which is currently in draft, will move to article space. I'm happy to consider other solutions, too, if we decide it's taking too long. valereee (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Willing to review this, but for now I'd just like to point out for now that vegan studies is currently a red link. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- ALT3:... that Western Carolina University English professor Laura Wright's academic interests include postcolonial literature and food studies? Source: "SPECIALIZATIONS: Postcolonial literature and theory South African literature Ecocriticism Animal studies Food studies"here valereee (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I guess we need a new reviewer here for ALT3 since I suggested it and would rather have a layperson take a look at it. ALT2 is approved as long as there's no link. Otherwise the article meets the requirements: it's new enough, long enough, adequately sourced, and did not find any close paraphrasing. ALT2 is cited to a paywalled source so accepted AGF; ALT3 has two sources, one offline (again accepted AGF), the other source seems to confirm it though. QPQ has been done. My only concern with the article, and this is more of a MOS:VAR issue than anything, is that the term "vegan studies" has single quotes ('') in the article instead of double quotes (American English) or none at all, and even though other quotes use double quote marks. ALT2 is approved, and I'll leave ALT3 to be reviewed by another reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, ALT2 isn't correct; she didn't coin the term. Also, the bio is not in good shape. Most of the text is in the "impact" section, which is about one of her books, not about her, and it's a quote farm of reviewers' responses. There is no source for that being her most prominent work. In addition, Wright has woven a lot of personal information about herself into her books and articles, but none of it appears in the bio. It says almost nothing about her. SarahSV (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- narutolovehinata5 Let's just pull it, not worth contention over valereee (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Noted. Marking for closure per nominator's request. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time, Feminist Narutolovehinata5! valereee (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
