Template:Did you know nominations/Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus
- 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: rejected by Rcsprinter (lecture) 16:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus
[edit]- ... that the viral video "Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus" had almost 10 million YouTube hits in the first four days after its posting?
Created/expanded by Anupam (talk). Self nom at 07:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Article is less than 1500 characters long and so doesn't pass the criteria. Del♉sion23 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- This should no longer be a problem as the article has been expanded further. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- The article is now over 1,500 characters so that one's ticked off. The only problem I see now is that the hook in its current form isn't completely supported by the sources, neither of which use 7 million as the number of views in the first four days. IBT states almost 6 million in three, Huffington Post states 2 million in two. Please correct the hook so that it is supported directly by a source. Also, I'd take out the final line which uses Facebook as its source. Links to celebrity Facebook and Twitter accounts are discouraged on Wikipedia.
- Dear User:Delusion23, I altered the hook in this template and in the article per your suggestion. I did however, reinstate the link to the original video in the infobox as the video was uploaded on both of those websites. Also, as far as WP:FANSITE is concerned, the opening sentence states "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid..." As a result, I think the last sentence should be fine for now since it links to Lecrae's official Facebook page. Thanks for your suggestions and help. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- The two videos link to the same content though so it's just two links to the same thing and seems unnecessary. With regards to the Facebook link, as you point out it is discouraged "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject". That link is not to the official page of the article's subject i.e. Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus. It is a link to Lacrae's Facebook account and Lacrae isn't the subject of the article so it should be removed. The hook looks better now that it is backed by the sources, cheers. Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply! Yes, I know that the two videos link to the same content - however both videos are the original ones and are the companies that the author used to disseminate the material. I also noticed today that an anonymous editor changed some aspects of the article and while most of his/her edits were reverted, he/she also clarified the importance of the Lecrae statement. However, I do not think that these minor issues are that consequential as far as a DYK nomination is concerned. Also, I have modified the hook per a new source. Are you willing to endorse this DYK now? The DYK follows the same format as the DYK for Why This Kolaveri Di, which passed the nomination step (see the article's talk page). Thanks for taking the time to read this message! With regards, AnupamTalk 04:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's a better hook than before with the increased numbers. However, you say the Facebook link doesn't matter, but it does as it is against Wikipedia policy and thus the nomination doesn't pass the 3rd article criteria. If the hook is promoted, the whole article is linked to on the front page so the entire article needs to be satisfactory. The link to Lacrae's Facebook account is unencyclopedic. As soon as Lacrae has made enough comments someone would have to search through thousands of comments to find the reference. Plus the fact that he commented on it is rather irrelevent. I don't understand why it's important to say that a rapper commented on the video, rather than talking about the point of the article he linked to which is a thorough critique of the article's subject. Talk about that reference instead of the Facebook one and I'll put the hook up for promotion if there are no other issues. Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply! Yes, I know that the two videos link to the same content - however both videos are the original ones and are the companies that the author used to disseminate the material. I also noticed today that an anonymous editor changed some aspects of the article and while most of his/her edits were reverted, he/she also clarified the importance of the Lecrae statement. However, I do not think that these minor issues are that consequential as far as a DYK nomination is concerned. Also, I have modified the hook per a new source. Are you willing to endorse this DYK now? The DYK follows the same format as the DYK for Why This Kolaveri Di, which passed the nomination step (see the article's talk page). Thanks for taking the time to read this message! With regards, AnupamTalk 04:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- The two videos link to the same content though so it's just two links to the same thing and seems unnecessary. With regards to the Facebook link, as you point out it is discouraged "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject". That link is not to the official page of the article's subject i.e. Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus. It is a link to Lacrae's Facebook account and Lacrae isn't the subject of the article so it should be removed. The hook looks better now that it is backed by the sources, cheers. Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Dear User:Delusion23, I altered the hook in this template and in the article per your suggestion. I did however, reinstate the link to the original video in the infobox as the video was uploaded on both of those websites. Also, as far as WP:FANSITE is concerned, the opening sentence states "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid..." As a result, I think the last sentence should be fine for now since it links to Lecrae's official Facebook page. Thanks for your suggestions and help. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- The article is now over 1,500 characters so that one's ticked off. The only problem I see now is that the hook in its current form isn't completely supported by the sources, neither of which use 7 million as the number of views in the first four days. IBT states almost 6 million in three, Huffington Post states 2 million in two. Please correct the hook so that it is supported directly by a source. Also, I'd take out the final line which uses Facebook as its source. Links to celebrity Facebook and Twitter accounts are discouraged on Wikipedia.
- This should no longer be a problem as the article has been expanded further. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Issues unaddressed in 3 weeks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
