Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Sands

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  MPJ-DK  12:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Matthew Sands, Richard Feynman

[edit]
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)
The Feynman Lectures on Physics
The Feynman Lectures on Physics


Improved to Good Article status by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC).

General eligibility:

  • New enough: No - Sands is ok but Feynman was featured on the main page in 2004 and so seems ineligible for a bold title too.
  • Long enough: Yes
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - Sands' authorship seems to be supported by citing an interview with him. I'd prefer to see a more independent source as corroboration.
  • Interesting: No - It seems too pedestrian currently. I'll suggest an ALT.

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Sorry to be opposing Feynman as a double as he's what attracted me to this nomination. But he doesn't really need any more publicity, does he? Andrew D. (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I tried trimming the original hook to make it work but here's a different one which seems better. It resolves the picture and citation issues but someone else will have to decide if it's more interesting. Andrew D. (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • New review required
    1. Feynman did appear as TFA in 2004, but the rules only say that Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK, or in a blurb on the main page's In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible. And Feynman has not appeared in DYK or OTD.
    2. The image does not have to be in all the articles in a multi-article hook, just one; but since the rules say in the first one, I have created an ALT2 hook re-worded so Feynman comes first
    3. The hook is sourced to Sands in his article, but to Gleick in Feynman's
  • I suppose that those rules were written when DYKs had to be new or expanded and so it was quite unlikely that an FA would qualify. The intent seems to be that if an article has been given a spot on the main page, it shouldn't get a rerun in DYK. I shall start discussion of this point at WT:DYK. Andrew D. (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:DYK Articles that have featured (bold link) previously on DYK, or in a blurb on the main page's In the news, or On this day sections are ineligible. (Articles linked at ITN or OTD not in bold, including the recent deaths section, are still eligible.) Both the linked articles are GA eligible. The policy was re-reviewed in 2014, a year after GA became eligible for inclusion into DYK, and it was not changed. It says what it says, and both these articles are eligible. — Maile (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Good 2 Go with ALT2 - Review by — Maile (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review
  • Image of the Feynman lectures is used in the Richard Feynman article and is PD on Commons
  • Image of Sands is PD, but blurry and not a good image for the main page
Matthew Sands review
QPQ
  • July 24, 2016 review of Leonid Solodkov used as QPQ for this nomination, and has not been used on any other nomination
Eligibility
  • Article was listed as GA August 10, 2016 and has 11318 characters (0 words) "readable prose size"
  • Article is NPOV, currently stable, no dispute tags
Sourcing
  • Every paragraph is sourced inline and online
  • Citations are appropriately formatted
  • No bare URLs
Tools
  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector showed issues that were for the most part either scientific terms, proper names or text in quotes.
Richard Feynman review
QPQ
  • August 11, 2016 review of Jaquinta used as QPQ for this nomination, and has not been used on any other nomination
Eligibility
  • Article was listed as GA August 5, 2016 and has 41418 characters (0 words) "readable prose size"
  • Article is NPOV, currently stable, no dispute tags
Sourcing
  • Every paragraph is sourced inline and online
  • Citations are appropriately formatted
  • No bare URLs
Tools
  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector showed issues that were for the most part either scientific terms, proper names or text in quotes.
  • Hawkeye7, as far as I'm concerned, this nomination will be good to go when we decide on what hook you want. — Maile (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    I prefer ALT2, which has a nicer image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
ALT 2 is 115 characters, stated in the Matthew Sands article, NPOV, and has two source citations at the end of the sentence where mentioned. Striking the other two hooks. — Maile (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This article passes and is good 2 go with ALT2. — Maile (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Matthew_Sands&oldid=736875174"