Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Ortrun Enderlein

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ortrun Enderlein

[edit]
(
)

Ortrun Enderlein at the German Luge Championships, in Oberhof, 14 February 1965

Created/expanded by GreatOrangePumpkin (talk). Self nom at 09:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Hook: Interesting, short enough... couple comments. One, wouldn't she be the first Olympic gold medalist? And two, that she was first is not explicitly in the cited text. AGF on offline and German sources
Article: New enough, long enough, AGF on offline references. Images look nice (although for GA I'd suggest someone crop them and upload them separately, to avoid the white space).
Summary: Minor hook issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review. I reworded the hook. According to the lead, "She is the first Olympic winner in luge ". Regards.--GoPTCN 11:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It's there, but it's not cited. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It links to an article which cites this.--GoPTCN 11:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If said article has a reference, all you have to do is copy it. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I don't understand the purpose of this, but I added an in-line citation. Regards.--GoPTCN 08:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Per DYK rule 3b: "The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source". What makes todor66.com reliable? Also, this does say that she was the first luge winner, just that she won. Would the Olympics have this on their site? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This does not answer my question. Anyway, I replaced the reliable reference with a more reliable one. Regards.--GoPTCN 16:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't use the Wikipedia article as a source. The reference is listed at Luge at the 1964 Winter Olympics. I would understand if there were no sources. Regards.--GoPTCN 20:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • As Crisco 1492 points out, that source says nothing about her victory being the first (i.e., first-ever) gold medalist. Further, I have doubts about that site's reliability based on the Disclaimer they run; their editorial standards seem quite lax. Just because the site is cited in the luge article does not make it reliable. An official Olympics site (or good secondary source) that establishes women's single luge as being new in 1964 would help; try this one. I'm sure there's a reliable source for her victory somewhere. However, you'd need something that says that the women's single luge medal was awarded first of the three events that year, the way the hook is worded now. (Luge was introduced in 1964, so there wouldn't have been winners prior to that year, but you'd need a source stating that the mixed or men's events were after the women's for Ortrun to be the very first luge gold medalist.) First women's single gold medalist seems in the bag, however. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "(i.e., first-ever) gold medalist" - if you would go to List of Olympic medalists in luge, you clearly see that it was the first ever luge event in the Olympics. Furthermore, the official site is currently under construction. Now as this nitpick is resolved, could someone check it? Regards.--GoPTCN 09:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not enough that the information is in some other Wikipedia article—be it Luge at the 1964 Winter Olympics or List of Olympic medalists in luge—or even that the sources are in those articles. DYK rules are clear: you need to properly cite sources for the hook information in the nominated article—Ortrun's article—directly following the part of the article that states the information. Until you do so, this nomination is stalled. The sports-reference one looks to contain both the race results and the fact that this was the first Olympics with luge; what it doesn't say is whether Ortrun was the first gold medalist or the first female gold medalist in the sport, which may require a modification to the hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree, but I placed a random source. Regards.--GoPTCN 15:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I added an additional source from New York Times.--GoPTCN 17:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There was already an excellent source used in the article, the Wer War Wer in der DDR? one, which includes: "1964 1. Olympiasiegerin im Rodeln" - "1964 1st female Olympic winner (i.e., gold medallist) in luge". It's necessary to have a clear source for the hook fact that does not involve original research, but it doesn't matter what language it's in. Great Orange Pumpkin, I am not sure you fully understand the German sources or the text you translated from the German Wikipedia article; I just had to make some corrections. But in any event, the fact was in fact referenced, the ref. just needed placing in that additional position. So I'm giving this the re-review arrow, and assuming it gets passed, it can then be placed in the special section for the Olympics, which I moved it out of. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ahhhh now I see an additional problem which does suggest that poor comprehension of the German is a factor. The sources are all presenting her as the first female winner, because German, like other languages with grammatical gender, has different words for a female and a male athlete in any sport. Therefore presenting (with link added to GDR):
  • Uhm... I don't think that ommiting a word is "poor comprehension of the German"; your claim is more than silly. Furthermore it is self-evident that she is a woman, and that she was the first winner is also correct, as the Men's event also took place in the same year. Also, of course I could place a random German link, but I am sure that most don't understand this language... And last but not least, I already put two links, and I find the third non-English source pretty redundant... Your suggested hook is not very great; I would just add "female" if you really wish, so: "that East German Ortrun Enderlein (pictured) was the first female Olympic gold medalist in luge?".--GoPTCN 19:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
That hook wording would also work and I considered making that simpler change, but it might be seen as implying that there had been male winners in the sport in previous Olympics; as I understand it it was completely new that year. As for silliness, I'm afraid not noting that the German sources make that distinction has caused a lot of the debate up above about whether she can be said to be the first. I don't think the source I re-used to solve the problem is "random" any more than the two you had already added for the point, and of course foreign-language sources are permissible - after all you have several points in the article cited to Neues Deutschland, to name one. It's good to have additional sources in English for important points, but as has been stated above, the primary principle is reliable sources, and avoiding OR also comes into it. In this case the German source you were already using is a reliable source that provides the explicit support required for the hook; the English-language ones provide further support for those who don't read German. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I note now that that reference has been removed from the statement of the hook point, even though it is used elsewhere in the article. I'll leave whoever reviews this to decide whether the point is currently adequately referenced, noting only that that ref is available for use there. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Also the reviewer should note that this is technically an expansion, with histmerge; this is the last pre-expansion version. (By my count it has been expanded five-fold). Yngvadottir (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I gave a nearly full review above. The only issue is that hook fact and its referencing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That New York Times reference is an odd web page: nowhere on it does it actually say that it's a list of the gold medalists in those events by year. I don't think it's usable absent that critical fact. Also, oddly, every reference citation used here has been a bare ref, the only such citation in the article. According to DYK rules, bare refs may not be used in nominated articles, and must be fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
For some reason my identification of the NYT Almanac reference was stripped out along with the use of the Wer war Wer in der DDR ref at that point. I've restored both but left out the other ref that was there (which I'd also identified). Yngvadottir (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Can someone please review it? We know how controversial it is to exclude the gender, but the nitpicks by BlueMoonset and others were resolved days ago.--GoPTCN 08:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Please don't rewrite history. There was no controversy in excluding gender; you simply failed to establish that she received the first-ever medal in luge. There were three luge events that first luge year, and no evidence at all in any source that you provided that stated that women's luge was run and awarded first, which is the only way she could have been the first luge medalist. She is, clearly, the first female luge medalist, or the first medalist in women's luge, both of which are interesting. To call it "nitpicks" is to fail to realize that you've not been doing the job of supplying the level of sourcing and accuracy that DYK requires. But then, you've had three separate reviewers telling you that you needed better sourcing, yet you've disagreed with us all and supplied "random" and generally inadequate sources instead of buckling down and doing it right, leaving it to the rest of us to try to improve the sourcing so it follows DYK rules. Since you didn't like Yngvadottir's ALT1, here's your version as ALT2 with slightly different wikilinking, and another slight variant on it as ALT3; I'm striking the original hook because it remains unsupported:
  • That much is undisputed. Tick for ALT2/3 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ortrun_Enderlein&oldid=879515497"