Template:Did you know nominations/Lukin Johnston
- 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 PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Lukin Johnston
[edit]- ... that Canadian journalist Lukin Johnston may have been assassinated three days after interviewing Adolf Hitler?
- ALT1:... that Canadian journalist Lukin Johnston disappeared mysteriously while ferrying across the English Channel, three days after interviewing Adolf Hitler?
- ALT2:... that three days after interviewing Adolf Hitler, Canadian journalist Lukin Johnston vanished mysteriously and was possibly assassinated?
- Reviewed: Beaver attack
Created by Canuckle (talk). Self nominated at 06:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC).
@Canuckle: New enough and long enough. There seems to be some close paraphrasing. A couple of paragraphs are unreferenced and the hook isn't directly cited. The QPQ is invalid because the nomination had already been reviewed. --Jakob (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hook is supported by references at top and bottom of article. "MAY" is a key word. If use of word assassinated is disliked, go with ALT1 "disappeared mysteriously." The possibility of death not being an accident is referenced in sources both for and against. The reference in the lead is by a 2010 history magazine article that ends with mention of theories but sides with an accident. At the end of the chronological article, a 2014 book supports 'cold-blooded' murder for political purposes. I have added more overt text to be clear on that. 18 of 21 paragraphs have one or more references. Not clear why the remaining 3 represent quality issues that require additional references to the sources already footnoted. Open to constructive criticism about sensitive paraphrasing but the number of direct quotations may affect the rating by the copyright-assessment tool. Canuckle (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The article is long enough. I prefer alt1, because speculation is unfortunately cheap, especially when dealing with disappearances and Nazis. I think we best stick with facts and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- It isn't enough. The hook was to be directly cited as per the DYK rules. And all of the paragraphs need references. It's not just a DYK rule, it's policy. I would not have mentioned the earwig results if I thought they had been just caused by quotes. Look carefully at the results again. And you haven't said anything about the invalid QPQ. --Jakob (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect about frequency of referencing. WP:CITEDENSE says Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even forfeatured articles. Wikipedia requires inline citations based on the content, not on the grammar and composition elements.Canuckle (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
