Template:Did you know nominations/Wikipedian in Residence
The following is an archived discussion of Wikipedian in Residence's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC).
Wikipedian in Residence, Sarah Stierch
[edit]( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
... that Sarah Stierch (pictured) was hired as Wikipedian in Residence at the Archives of American Art and Smithsonian Institution Archives?
- Reviewed: Not required
- Comment: The Sarah Stierch article is seven days late and AFD, but hopefully (if it's kept) a date exception can be made
Created by Ktr101 (talk), Catavar (talk), Cindamuse (talk). Nominated by Crisco 1492 (talk) at 10:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- AFD closed as keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry but, whatever the outcome of the AfD vote and however it was arrived at, this article simply has to much text sourced to unreliable sources. Specifically, blogs, internet forums, youtube or internal (wikimedia related) sources. In particular, these have to go: [1], [2], [3], [4] and probably a few others. We still have WP:RS and standards here, even when it concerns a subject we like.Volunteer Marek 03:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Did you even check the second article? There are two nominated here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- As for some of the sources you've questioned: the first YouTube ref is an official channel of a university and reliable for the text it supports, the Wikimedia source is acceptable as a primary source, Openglam.org is acceptable per WP:SPS. I'll take a look at the others later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I've checked both. The first one has more serious problems. If you want to split this double nom into two and propose a hook for the second article I think that would be more or less ready to go (it could benefit from a further expansion, but it's over the DYK threshold). However I strongly disagree that these are acceptable sources in the first article, because this is a BLP (we used to prod delete BLPs that were sourced to stuff like that - what happened?) and second because you're asking for main page exposure. Primary sources are to be avoided. So are self published sources. There might be cases where they can be used, but this exception is not a carte blanche, and I see no reason for them to be here. This is in addition to the fact that you run into self-referencing, and COI of sources.Volunteer Marek 16:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to change WP:PRIMARY, that's the place to go, not here. As long as PRIMARY still allows sources related to the subject and WP:SPSes to source uncontroversial information, it's acceptable at DYK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Although I agree with you about the forums and plan on taking a look at what could be trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- The Youtube video is clearly reliable, as it is the official channel of the university. However, I agree that the NaptownRollerGirls forum is not a reliable source. If The Wikipedian article had been written by William himself, then there might be the argument of it being an okay SPS so long as it was directly attributed to him in the article. However, it wasn't written by him, but by User:Grisette, who, while being a Wikipedian, is just as unreliable a source as any of us on here. So, no, The Wikipedian article isn't reliable either. But i'm sure there's other sources that cover that information. The Mary Sue, however, is a much more difficult one to tackle. It has an official board of editors and the article itself was written by one of those board editors. Not to mention that the article says its information is from a Daily Dot article, which has been considered reliable in multiple RSN discussions. So I would consider this source reliable. Therefore, two reliable sources in this bunch and two unreliable ones. If you can switch out the unreliable sources with something better, Crisco, or just take out the info they're being used for, then the article should be good to go. Unless there are any other sourcing concerns, VM? SilverserenC 10:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Both trimmed, with edit summaries detailing why. Interesting about the Mary Sue, I've never used it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- The Youtube video is clearly reliable, as it is the official channel of the university. However, I agree that the NaptownRollerGirls forum is not a reliable source. If The Wikipedian article had been written by William himself, then there might be the argument of it being an okay SPS so long as it was directly attributed to him in the article. However, it wasn't written by him, but by User:Grisette, who, while being a Wikipedian, is just as unreliable a source as any of us on here. So, no, The Wikipedian article isn't reliable either. But i'm sure there's other sources that cover that information. The Mary Sue, however, is a much more difficult one to tackle. It has an official board of editors and the article itself was written by one of those board editors. Not to mention that the article says its information is from a Daily Dot article, which has been considered reliable in multiple RSN discussions. So I would consider this source reliable. Therefore, two reliable sources in this bunch and two unreliable ones. If you can switch out the unreliable sources with something better, Crisco, or just take out the info they're being used for, then the article should be good to go. Unless there are any other sourcing concerns, VM? SilverserenC 10:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
This should be re-checked now. SilverserenC 15:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- My view on this is that the article is still not up to standards in terms of the quality and reliability of sources, particularly for a BLP. Specifically I would not consider the MarySue source reliable. I'm fine with someone else doing a second review however.Volunteer Marek 21:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, right now we have conflicting views between you and Silver, so yeah, I'll leave this for a ?fourth opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Fourth opinion here. The articles are OK, IMO. Sourcing (i.e., MarySue) for the statement that Sarah started the Teahouse does seem weak, but that's not the hook fact (and I find plenty of third-party sources about her involvement with it), so that's not a relevant quibble for DYK. However, I'm bothered by the way the hook seems to promote Sarah. I suggest a rewording to shift the emphasis around to the program:
- ALT1 ... that the Wikipedian in Residence program placed Sarah Stierch (pictured) at the Archives of American Art and Smithsonian Institution Archives?
- For me, that simple shift makes this more acceptable. --Orlady (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1 is fine by me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm happy to approve Orlady's ALT1 hook, and affirm the "fourth opinion" review. Both articles could be improved, certainly, but they are ready for the front page. FWIW, I've seen media outlets such as Digital Spy using MarySue as a source. Moswento talky 11:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- My view on this is that the article is still not up to standards in terms of the quality and reliability of sources, particularly for a BLP. Specifically I would not consider the MarySue source reliable. I'm fine with someone else doing a second review however.Volunteer Marek 21:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
