Template talk:Did you know/Frank Graham (writer)
Frank Graham (writer)
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as 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 Crisco 1492 (talk)
- ... that Hall of Fame sportswriter Frank Graham, once described as "psychopathically polite," loved the "shadowy figures and rogues that dwelt on the fringes of his favorite sports"?
- Reviewed: William A. Caldwell
Created by Cbl62 (talk). Nominated by Cbl62 (talk) at 05:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hook: Length is fine, hook facts are cited. Interest factor isn't bad. No image.
- Article: References have no access dates, and is Book Rags reliable? Length is fine, date is fine. Image has a FUR. AGF on offline and pay-to-view sources.
- Summary:
Please improve referencing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have improved the referencing. Among other things, I added an access date to the "citeweb" reference. I have not routinely used access dates for citations to published books or articles in well-established newspapers. I don't know that such is required for Wikipedia (?), and it has not been required for DYK purposes. As for BookRags, it is not the publisher of the source. The referenced work, "Dictionary of Literary Biography," is published by Thomson Gale, a recognized publisher. "Book Rags" simply provides a service to persons wishing to purchase the work online. To avoid confusion, I removed the "url" link to the BookRags website. Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Links to online sources can die. For example, the New York Times article might be moved or taken down. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- For the reason you've mentioned, I agree that "access date" information is particularly important for cites to web sites. But not critical for citations to published works like books or major newspapers like The New York Times. Is it your view that access date information must be complete for New York Times articles before an article qualifies for DYK? I've had articles promoted to Good Article status without that information. Cbl62 (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather have it, but since it is not a big enough detail to hold this back I will approve. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- For the reason you've mentioned, I agree that "access date" information is particularly important for cites to web sites. But not critical for citations to published works like books or major newspapers like The New York Times. Is it your view that access date information must be complete for New York Times articles before an article qualifies for DYK? I've had articles promoted to Good Article status without that information. Cbl62 (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- Links to online sources can die. For example, the New York Times article might be moved or taken down. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have improved the referencing. Among other things, I added an access date to the "citeweb" reference. I have not routinely used access dates for citations to published books or articles in well-established newspapers. I don't know that such is required for Wikipedia (?), and it has not been required for DYK purposes. As for BookRags, it is not the publisher of the source. The referenced work, "Dictionary of Literary Biography," is published by Thomson Gale, a recognized publisher. "Book Rags" simply provides a service to persons wishing to purchase the work online. To avoid confusion, I removed the "url" link to the BookRags website. Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I did add them. Cbl62 (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)