Template:Did you know nominations/The Shaggs
- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Shaggs
- ... that the music of the 1960s band the Shaggs is considered among the worst ever recorded? Source: "Yet many people hearing the Shaggs’ legendary Philosophy album for the first time have a common, understandable reaction: this could be the 'worst album ever recorded'."Book by Irwin Chusid; "A Band Considered By Many to be the Worst of All Time" Vice article; "Even if their album was the all-time worst, the Shaggs still have plenty of fans" Boston Globe; "Some people say Philosophy of the World is the 'worst album ever made'." Vice article
- Reviewed:
5x expanded by Popcornfud (talk). Self-nominated at 13:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC).
Before I really dive into this, it looks like this doesn't meet the 5x in 10 days requirement. From what I can see, the expansion started from Special:Permalink/1102438699 at 5416 characters of readable prose (as reported by DYK check). Beginning on 2022-08-13 and running to 2022-08-21, it was expanded to 21846 characters of readable prose (again, as reported by DYK check). That's 4.03x. A worthy effort, but not 5x. Am I missing something? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
- RoySmith, oh, this is my own stupid fault. When I was reading the rules before nominating, I misread
The length of both the old and new versions of the article is calculated based on prose character count, not word count
- I didn't see it says "prose character count" and not simply "character count". I think we can close this review as a failed experiment. Thanks for checking it over! Popcornfud (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)- @Popcornfud: Will you not be able to expand the article further? The hook is pretty eye-catching and it would be a shame if the nomination had to be failed despite it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I imagine it'll get a little bigger in the next few days because I've discovered a couple more sources I can integrate info from. However, I can't guarantee it'll be enough content to push it into the 5x limit and I'm not going to add anything that I don't think should be there anyway, if you see what I mean. If it does end up reaching the 5x mark I can nominate again, though. Popcornfud (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I asked about this on WT:DYK. I'm going to go ahead and complete the review and leave this on hold. If you end up meeting the 5x requirement, that's great. If not, we can deal with it at that time. But I'm pretty sure if I closed this nomination, your window to submit will close with it, so doing it this way leaves your options open. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan. Thank you! Popcornfud (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I asked about this on WT:DYK. I'm going to go ahead and complete the review and leave this on hold. If you end up meeting the 5x requirement, that's great. If not, we can deal with it at that time. But I'm pretty sure if I closed this nomination, your window to submit will close with it, so doing it this way leaves your options open. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I imagine it'll get a little bigger in the next few days because I've discovered a couple more sources I can integrate info from. However, I can't guarantee it'll be enough content to push it into the 5x limit and I'm not going to add anything that I don't think should be there anyway, if you see what I mean. If it does end up reaching the 5x mark I can nominate again, though. Popcornfud (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Popcornfud: Will you not be able to expand the article further? The hook is pretty eye-catching and it would be a shame if the nomination had to be failed despite it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- RoySmith, oh, this is my own stupid fault. When I was reading the rules before nominating, I misread
- Readable prose size doesn't quite meet the 5x requirement; final decision pending because of that.
- Does not appear to have ever been in DKY or ITN before.
- Article is long enough (modulo the 5x question)
- The main body of the article is properly cited to WP:RS.
- The hook is cited to Vice (magazine), of which WP:RSNP says, "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications." My opinion is it's probably OK in this context.
- Wasn't aware of the issue with Vice, thanks. I hope this won't be a problem, as the claim is cited to multiple sources in the article, including Rolling Stone and the music journalist Irwin Chusid. Popcornfud (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- The big issue looks like a large number of possible copyvios flagged by earwig. Many of them look like proper noun phrases which can't reasonably be phrased any other way, but I also see a lot of direct quotes, which need more precise attribution. On the other hand, looking at this closer, it looks like the earwig report just elides the citations in it's display and the few I've spot-checked are actually cited properly in the article itself. I'll need to take a closer look at that, but I need to head out, so I'll pick this up this evening.
- Earwig looks like it's down at the moment, so I'll need to get back to that when it's back up.
- Earwig is back up. I've confirmed that almost everything earwig tagged is indeed properly cited in the article. The one exception is that
In 2012, the musician Jesse Krakow organized a Shaggs tribute show in Brooklyn
is a copy-paste from The New Yorker. That should be rephrased in some non-infringing way.- Done. Popcornfud (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Earwig is back up. I've confirmed that almost everything earwig tagged is indeed properly cited in the article. The one exception is that
- Earwig looks like it's down at the moment, so I'll need to get back to that when it's back up.
- Why is the Chusid reference broken out as a separate "References" section distinct from the in-line cited "Notes" section? They should be combined. The references to it really should include page numbers to make it possible for a reader to find the specific passage which supports the cited statements.
- Although I'm very hot on citing, I don't add page numbers because adding page numbers is a pain in the ass using the visual editor (and it's probably no easier in markup either). Let me know if this is a DYK dealbreaker. (It's all taken from one chapter in a book; could I just cite the chapter instead?) Popcornfud (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- If it's all from one chapter, then sure, just cite the chapter. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- If it's all from one chapter, then sure, just cite the chapter. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- Overall, I'm not seeing any problems with WP:NPOV. There are a number of statements which aren't complementary to the living subjects, but they all appear to be supported by appropriately WP:RS, so I don't see any WP:BLP issues.
- The image of the band is copyrighted, but I think the fair use rationale is acceptable.
- Overall, other than the 5x issue which still needs to be resolved (and pending any possible copyvios that show up when earwig gets back on line), I would call this a pass. In fact, I suspect it would pass WP:GAN without much trouble, so if this ends up not getting on DYK due to the 5x issue, I encourage you to submit it to GA. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the proposed hook, although I could see how some might object to "is considered" as speaking too much in Wikipedia voice, so perhaps something like:
- ALT1 ... that the music of the 1960s band the Shaggs has been called among the worst ever recorded?
- might be better. Or
- ALT2: ... that the music of the Shaggs has been called among the worst ever recorded?
- would be a little more mysterious and thus hookier. I'm fine with any of those.
- Personally, I don't see much difference there. Wikipedia is either saying people consider it the worst, or people have called it the worst — ie, Wikipedia has no opinion, the people do. But I'm completely fine with either of the alternatives you propose. Popcornfud (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Review is done. If the 5x issue can be cleared, this is good to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- I took another look at the character count and I think it's unlikely that I'm going to expand the article enough to cross the 5x limit. It seemed a shame for your review effort to go to waste, so I've nominated the article for GA. We'll see how that goes. Popcornfud (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, closing this with some regret as failed. I think you make the right decision; if there's not really enough material, then padding this out just for the purpose of qualifying for DYK would be silly (or worse). I'm eagerly looking forward to seeing this listed on GA (and then of course, you can come back here). -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- I took another look at the character count and I think it's unlikely that I'm going to expand the article enough to cross the 5x limit. It seemed a shame for your review effort to go to waste, so I've nominated the article for GA. We'll see how that goes. Popcornfud (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
