Template:Did you know nominations/Paige Lorenze
- 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 Bruxton talk 14:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Paige Lorenze
- ... that the New York Post called Paige Lorenze "the female Pete Davidson"? Source: The Cut
Created by Hameltion (talk). Self-nominated at 04:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Paige Lorenze; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
New enough (when nominated), long enough and otherwise in good shape: no sign of WP:PROMO or copyvio issues. Article is well sourced, as is the hook. QPQ is done. Image is formally awaiting review, but the licence conditions provided seem correct to me.
- I do however have a small quibble with the text: we have written Referring to her number of high-profile relationships before the hook, but that isn't really supported by the Cut article. The Cut implies some connection to her comment that "famous men want [her]", but I don't think we can extrapolate that to the number of high-profile relationships she has had. Given the BLP context, it's important that we say only what we can back up from good sources. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist: Cut "number"; fwiw, the Post uses the phrase "eclectic group". Thanks for the review. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Approved on that basis. It's clear enough in the source that there's some connection between the Pete Davidson label and the nature of the men who fall in love with her; I think this formulation successfully avoids adding an implication that isn't there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist and Hameltion: The hook is sourced to New York (magazine)#The Cut which in turn is quoting the post. Can we get the original source in our article so that it is not one source quoting another? Bruxton (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Bruxton: I specifically avoided citing the generally unreliable WP:NYPOST and chose to include the quotation only because a good secondary source mentions it. Though suppose it would be OK to add the Post as a primary source if you think that helps the article:
{{cite news|url=https://pagesix.com/article/paige-lorenze-dating-history/|title=Paige Lorenze's dating history: From Armie Hammer to Tommy Paul|last=Hautman|first=Nicholas|date=2023-09-05|website=[[Page Six]]|access-date=2023-12-07}}. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)- @UndercoverClassicist and Hameltion: That is a tough one. We have a source quoting a redlined (generally unreliable) source. I am not sure we can use it.@Theleekycauldron: can I bother you to weigh in on the use of the sources we discussed here? Bruxton (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Bruxton: Figured this concern might come up – in short, Wikipedia's justified discouragement of using certain outlets as sources shouldn't extend to when reliable sources have taken notice of them. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 00:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Hameltion: I pinged TLC and hope that they offer an opinion. If not I will check with another dyk expert. I do not want to hold up the nomination. Thank you for all you do in DYK. Bruxton (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Bruxton: I've always found this to be an interesting question, but I'm not sure it's one DYK needs to answer one way or the other. We can trust the The Cut to accurately quote the New York Post, and moreover, The Cut provides due weight that the Post doesn't. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Hameltion: I pinged TLC and hope that they offer an opinion. If not I will check with another dyk expert. I do not want to hold up the nomination. Thank you for all you do in DYK. Bruxton (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Bruxton: Figured this concern might come up – in short, Wikipedia's justified discouragement of using certain outlets as sources shouldn't extend to when reliable sources have taken notice of them. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 00:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist and Hameltion: That is a tough one. We have a source quoting a redlined (generally unreliable) source. I am not sure we can use it.@Theleekycauldron: can I bother you to weigh in on the use of the sources we discussed here? Bruxton (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Bruxton: I specifically avoided citing the generally unreliable WP:NYPOST and chose to include the quotation only because a good secondary source mentions it. Though suppose it would be OK to add the Post as a primary source if you think that helps the article:
- @UndercoverClassicist and Hameltion: The hook is sourced to New York (magazine)#The Cut which in turn is quoting the post. Can we get the original source in our article so that it is not one source quoting another? Bruxton (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
