Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Scales
- 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: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Thomas Scales
[edit]
Reverend Thomas Scales
- ... that the Reverend Thomas Scales (pictured) helped make representations to Queen Victoria on behalf of the "friends of the negro"?
- ALT1:have a go
- Reviewed: QPQ=Lionel Royce
Created by Steelfamily (talk) and Victuallers (talk). Self-nominated at 21:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC).
- Article is new enough and long enough. I did not see any obvious plagiarism, having checked a few of the sources already (will look at all of them). But the article needs a few things. a. Consistency in the citations. Some are templates, others aren't; all really need full bibliographical information. This is the front page. b. Copy edits. I am not sure, for instance, what the grammar of the "Scales was also involved..." sentence is; "These were based on resolutions passed at meetings at Exeter Hall of "friends of the negro" on behalf on the enslaved people in her empire" needs fixing. c. Incidental references missing--that his notes were a source for Congregationalism in Yorkshire needs a citation (and note that I have italicized titles). d. OR fixes: the report on Lady Hewley does not note, as far as I can tell, that he had detailed knowledge which was invaluable etc.; note also that the title of the report needs cleaning up. e. minor things: he retired after 30 years, but by that time I have forgotten what he was.
Now, the hook. I assume "representations" should read "petitions". There is a citation, but it's incomplete: the title of the article is missing (I believe it is "Calcutta Christian Observer Extra"), the title of the publication isn't in italics, the page numbers (plural!) are incorrect, the issue number of the publication is missing. And there's a stray parenthesis in the article right there in that sentence. So, there's some work to do. BTW, Victuallers, thanks for resuscitating this. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Article is new enough and long enough. I did not see any obvious plagiarism, having checked a few of the sources already (will look at all of them). But the article needs a few things. a. Consistency in the citations. Some are templates, others aren't; all really need full bibliographical information. This is the front page. b. Copy edits. I am not sure, for instance, what the grammar of the "Scales was also involved..." sentence is; "These were based on resolutions passed at meetings at Exeter Hall of "friends of the negro" on behalf on the enslaved people in her empire" needs fixing. c. Incidental references missing--that his notes were a source for Congregationalism in Yorkshire needs a citation (and note that I have italicized titles). d. OR fixes: the report on Lady Hewley does not note, as far as I can tell, that he had detailed knowledge which was invaluable etc.; note also that the title of the report needs cleaning up. e. minor things: he retired after 30 years, but by that time I have forgotten what he was.
I must admit I'm disappointed by this review. I keep trying to find new DYK editors and bring them here in the hope that they enjoy contributing, but we seem to just beat them up. I understand that you feel that the main page needs to be perfect but I am more interested in new contributions to the project. It appears that we are not heading in the same direction here. Is the consistency of ref formats so important and is it really so tricky to fix? I have spent some time improving these for Steelfamily and I was hoping for some help. I do note that you made three edits to improve and I am impressed to see that @Keith D: has made some positive contributions. If it wasn't for these then I'd just give this one up. "We" have already rejected this article as "not notable" and I do not want to bring new editors to DYK if we are just going to list rather than fix errors. I will look to see if these errors are really too difficult to fix. e.g. why not just change the word "invaluable"? Why not change the word "representation" to "petition"? Please just delete this nomination if you cannot see how to edit this newbies article. Victuallers (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed by this response, Victuallers. I can't guess what the right word ought to be in the hook: that's your job, as nominator. You're doing great work bringing stuff up on the front page, but it has to be done properly--and correct citations and all that, and correct grammar, that's a minimum. I spent a half an hour on this article and the nomination; you're welcome. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- It took me ten minutes to fix that one reference. There's a few more. There is nothing special or petty about the questions I asked, Victuallers Drmies (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Lets finish this mutual disappointment. I expect to nominate work and get get help. I feel as if you see it as your job to list errors which I then fix..... urrrr............no. Victuallers (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
