Template:Did you know nominations/The Undercommons
- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Undercommons
... that the spread of The Undercommons, which could be downloaded for free after its publication, was compared to that of samizdat literature? Source: Harvard MagazineALT1: ... that The Undercommons has been described as a manifesto for free thinking, "a provocative world-making project", and a demonstration of how the media enables policies meant to control the public? Source: [1], [2], [3]- ALT2: ... that The Undercommons, an essay collection that criticizes academia, was written by two alumni of Harvard University? Source: Harvard Magazine
- Reviewed: Sex Ed 120%
Created by Ezlev (talk). Self-nominated at 06:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Why is "The Undergraduate Historical Journal at UC Merced" a reliable source? I don't think that undergrad work is commonly counted as reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - See above
- Interesting:
- Other problems: - I think ALT0 should be rephrased to say who made that comparison, unless it's found in multiple independent sources
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
(t · c) buidhe 13:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- buidhe, I've struck ALT0 since I don't think it's as interesting as the other two. Based on a reading of WP:SCHOLARSHIP it looks like the source from the UC Merced journal is not reliable other than perhaps
to show the views of the groups represented by those journals
– so I think it's okay to leave the mention of the review, which is clearly attributed, but I've removed the portion of the synopsis that's currently sourced to that review. Let me know if you disagree or if you think we're good to go, and thanks for the review! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- User:Ezlev According to the website of this undergrad journal, it is run by undergrads and publishes undergrad coursework. Although you could argue WP:ABOUTSELF it's hard to see how an undergrad paper could be WP:DUE anywhere on Wikipedia. (t · c) buidhe 21:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, buidhe. I've removed the paper entirely. Because that makes ALT1 unusable, I'll add ALT1a:
- ALT1a: ... that The Undercommons has been described as a book about "how to intellectually be together," as "difficult, beautiful, vertiginous, fortifying and enlivening", and as a manifesto for free thinking? Source: [4], [5], [6]
- I think ALT2 is probably the best, though. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough, buidhe. I've removed the paper entirely. Because that makes ALT1 unusable, I'll add ALT1a:
- buidhe, I've struck ALT0 since I don't think it's as interesting as the other two. Based on a reading of WP:SCHOLARSHIP it looks like the source from the UC Merced journal is not reliable other than perhaps
