707:
nominator called for a new reviewer if they disagreed with the original review. No one can force a reviewer to pass something they are not comfortable with, even if it's not a DYK requirement. Expecting a reviewer to fix issues is counterproductive because it prevents them from approving that same submission. Given the dearth of reviewers, a little appreciation wouldn't go amiss for someone taking the time to go through the nomination. Yes, some do point out inconsequential things but the bigger picture is it gets posted quicker with a simple fix. Though a block of text is a good way to elicit tl;dr and a longer wait. Good luck anyways.
176:
785:
said "social media protests", because I don't see any evidence people were out marching in the streets (or paying much notice at all until 2014), but the implications in the supporting news citations is that the social media outrage embarrassed Mattel into withdrawing the book, which is probably a close enough match to the interpretation presented in the hook for DYK purposes. It draws readers in to find out more. Good to go at last!
760:
777:
674:, I don't believe we have, but I've done a DYK review or two. I have very high standards for DYKs and more than once have I had to hear "but that it's good writing is not a DYK requirement!" and stuff like that. Perhaps there is a plethora of citations here, perhaps there are too many, perhaps--on the other hand--a point is made by the wealth of citations: the qualities of CEB are
746:
see the problem with citations. As it currently stands, citation numbers seem fine and not overly done. Lastly, I'd recommend ALT2 as my first choice of hook, followed by ALT3. ALT1 is awkwardly worded. ALT3 is fine, but doesn't much convey the newsworthiness of this article. ALT2 seems perfect. I do think this is an important issue and it would be smart to move it along.
460:
271:
678:
recognized to be ridiculous, and that's a point worth emphasizing. The number of citations in the pre-Prioryman version is high, yes, but the article was not unreadable, far from it, and saying it might not pass because of it is not kosher: it does not fit with DYK practice, it poses abnormally high
274:
New enough, long enough and reliably sourced; however, it looks over-referenced to me. Is it really necessary to have up to 8 sources (!) for a single statement? I'd strongly recommend trimming the citations. The hooks are all OK; I think ALT1 is possibly the best one. If the excessive citations can
317:
As the main content creators, would it be possible to reduce the number of redundant inline cites? It's not a DYK requirement, but having more than three citations (running the same story) for a statement does impair the readability of the article. I'd rather not have to close this on such a simple
745:
Hi all. New to this thread, but not to the issues at play with this article. My $ .02: First, there is no way we can run it on DYK with that hook. Hooks can certainly be playful but they should be factual, and the suggested hook is only going to create more unnecessary controversy. Second: I don't
784:
is my preferred choice of hook, though the sentence in the article about the book being withdrawn did not state a date - I've edited the article to add the date in the sentence, hopefully this doesn't preclude me from reviewing this nomination! To be honest, if I was writing the hook I would have
667:
OK, I have a proposal. Let's just run it like it is. I didn't really see the point of all this pruning, but I also don't see the purpose a continued battle serves. Prioryman made at least one good point ("get their geek on"), and while I don't agree that so many of these references had to be cut,
414:
source for a statement that simple and uncontentious. I've been through the article and sources carefully and found other problems that I fixed; I found a quotation (which I've removed) that wasn't in any of the cited sources and some sources were being cited even though they did not mention the
706:
I don't think we have met but I've seen you mosey around. I have nothing against the article and if I had, I wouldn't have bothered trying to convince the nominator not to withdraw. I did state that citation spam would not disqualify this DYK and it would have been a lot less dramatic had the
290:
We say that there is no such thing as too many references, but if this is a problem, I withdraw nom instead. Thanks. You may wan't to read the comment at
Yngvadottir's page, section Thumb, under the Turkey, about the merger of two articles into one, and thus the bigger amount of refs.
562:, QPQs are article for article, so you've only used one of them here. It looks like Gerda Arendt has already claimed QPQ credit for at least one of the seven nominated articles, so be sure to claim only the ones you did. Thanks for the quick response! (Drmies already pinged me; now
718:
Fuebaey, I appreciate the work. I have a few hundred DYKs, so I have a few hundred DYKs--believe me, I know what it is like to not get thanked, but I also know what it's like to fix articles that are nominated. I just wouldn't call this "citation spam". Thanks,
430:
Well, I know
Yngvadottir for a very conscious editor, who is very careful to do things right. I do not really feel that readability has been much compromised, to be sincere. For any editor who will take over - you may want to read THIS :
435:- about the history of this article, how two editors started to write two articles in the same time ( with the amount of references required) - and how theses got merged into one. An explanation for the amount of refs. It's all here at
518::MIES; you always have to edit conflict me! No problem at all. See above added. My only question. Are those counted like seven or just one, because it was just as much of a work to review each and every one, like if they were singles.
415:
things they were supposedly being cited to support. I've fixed this one too. Given that I've edited the article significantly I'm probably not now best placed to sign it off here, so I'll ask for another editor to complete the review.
679:
standards, and it diminishes the work done by and investment of by the writers which, as you should be able to tell, is significant. But let's just run it, get a bunch of hits, and we'll see what happens with the article afterward.
91:
668:
it's more important that the world gets to have a good laugh at the possibly well-intentioned but totally boneheaded attempt that CEB stands for--and maybe the next Barbie will be more real. Let's just run it.
410:. A case in point: the simple three-word statement "the company apologized" was cited to no less than four sources. This is unnecessary and as Fuebaey rightly says above, it harms readability. You only need
177:
Template:Did you know nominations/Biertan fortified church, Câlnic
Citadel, Dârjiu fortified church, Prejmer fortified church, Saschiz fortified church, Valea Viilor fortified church, Viscri fortified church
333:
Well, you can talk to
Yngvadottir on her page, but she expressed her wish not to remove references. If that's a reason not to give green tick than we decline and thereby withdraw nomination. Sorry.
827:
463:
Please note that a QPQ review will need to be done. Effective
November 21, all nominations for DYK are subject to QPQ requirements, not solely self-nominations, and
86:
36:
733:
224:
was created in 2010 at the urging of women in technology but the accompanying book depicts Barbie as helpless without men's assistance?
17:
628:
40:
780:
Article is an interesting read, meeting all the DYK criteria (as already stated above) and well worth appearing on DYK.
407:
44:
403:
My last hope is that not each and any DYK entry will be treated like this. FUBAR Serten 06:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
582:
141:
471:
is mentioned in the initial DYK credits, but not given a DYKmake. Is this an oversight, or a deliberate choice?
632:
601:
597:
593:
493:, I thank you for your edits and your assistance. Give me a bit of time--Hafspajen, take it easy, all is well.
244:
232:
220:
172:
159:
81:
586:
111:
808:
571:
476:
260:
190:
116:
651:
640:
609:
540:
523:
444:
420:
397:
353:
338:
296:
280:
206:
734:
Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_110#Davis_Run_in_Template:Did_you_know_nominations.2FDavis_Run
554:
513:
768:
751:
712:
589:
323:
101:
804:
724:
688:
680:
567:
532:
498:
486:
472:
436:
432:
382:
371:
312:
308:
256:
198:
186:
790:
236:
was withdrawn in 2014 after protests that it depicts Barbie as incompetent with computers?
759:
647:
636:
605:
559:
536:
519:
490:
464:
440:
416:
393:
363:
349:
334:
292:
276:
202:
821:
96:
29:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
764:
747:
708:
671:
319:
720:
701:
684:
494:
468:
378:
367:
345:
194:
62:
776:
732:
Point is, ones comfort zone feeling is not to be main base of reviews. Compare
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
786:
459:
270:
646:
AARR, now
Yngvadottir removed herself from the Created by. Ah, blast it all.
437:
User talk:Drmies#For you and talk-page stalkers: Overlapping good intentions
433:
User talk:Drmies#For you and talk-page stalkers: Overlapping good intentions
121:
803:: I've struck the original hook, as it was not supported in the article.
47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.
366:, I made a sneaky little tweak. Does it look better to you? Thanks,
406:
Overreaction much? I've amended the article myself to sort out the
635:
for this nom. Sill have 3 left plus two articles more somewhere.
249:
581:
Oh, NOW I remember! Yes, I mean, no - it was three she did,
670:
One more thing, if I may. Prioryman, we've met before;
146:
275:
be sorted out I'd be happy to give this one a tick.
106:
489:, I'll have a look later today when I have time.
348:could maybe come up with some solution, cheers,
8:
49:No further edits should be made to this page
683:, please send this on if you can. Thanks,
467:has more than five DYK credits. Question:
69:
828:Passed DYK nominations from November 2014
72:
736:. Serten 08:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
604:and .. hm, lost a church somewhere.
7:
66: 16:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
209:) at 17:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
163:are better at computers than boys?
24:
377:BTW, I agree with choosing ALT1.
18:Template:Did you know nominations
775:
758:
458:
269:
263:) 18:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
715:) 02:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
643:) 15:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
526:) 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
400:) 04:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
230:... that the book accompanying
32:Please do not modify this page.
811:) 04:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
793:) 11:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
771:) 19:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
727:) 02:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
691:) 00:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
654:) 16:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
612:) 15:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
574:) 15:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
543:) 15:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
501:) 15:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
479:) 15:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
447:) 12:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
423:) 09:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
385:) 00:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
374:) 00:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
356:) 00:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
341:) 20:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
326:) 19:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
299:) 14:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
283:) 13:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
1:
629:Valea Viilor fortified church
45:Knowledge talk:Did you know
37:this nomination's talk page
844:
587:Viscri fortified churchand
117:Find sources (notability)
92:Earwig's Copyvio Detector
633:Biertan fortified church
602:Saschiz fortified church
598:Prejmer fortified church
594:Biertan fortified church
566:have an edit conflict!)
245:Computer Engineer Barbie
233:Computer Engineer Barbie
221:Computer Engineer Barbie
173:Biertan fortified church
133:Computer Engineer Barbie
583:Dârjiu fortified church
41:the article's talk page
175:from this nomination.
107:A Simple Word Counter
87:Reviewer instructions
763:New review request.
112:Reviewers' template
201:), - Nominated by
558:
517:
408:citation overkill
210:
130:
129:
835:
779:
762:
705:
631:. So I use then
552:
511:
462:
316:
273:
184:
70:
56:The result was:
34:
843:
842:
838:
837:
836:
834:
833:
832:
818:
817:
816:
699:
306:
153:
151:
147:Article history
135:
126:
102:Character count
67:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
841:
839:
831:
830:
820:
819:
815:
814:
813:
812:
795:
794:
756:
755:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
729:
728:
694:
693:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
590:Câlnic Citadel
576:
575:
547:
546:
545:
544:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
481:
480:
451:
450:
449:
448:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
387:
386:
375:
360:
359:
358:
357:
344:Last chance -
342:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
301:
300:
285:
284:
254:
253:
237:
225:
182:
181:
180:
179:
166:
165:
150:
149:
144:
142:Back to T:TDYK
138:
136:
134:
131:
128:
127:
125:
124:
119:
114:
109:
104:
99:
94:
89:
84:
78:
75:
74:
54:
53:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
840:
829:
826:
825:
823:
810:
806:
802:
799:
798:
797:
796:
792:
788:
783:
778:
774:
773:
772:
770:
766:
761:
753:
749:
744:
743:
735:
731:
730:
726:
722:
717:
716:
714:
710:
703:
698:
697:
696:
695:
692:
690:
686:
682:
677:
673:
666:
665:
653:
649:
645:
644:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
592:. Mine were
591:
588:
584:
580:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
556:
555:edit conflict
551:
550:
549:
548:
542:
538:
534:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
525:
521:
515:
514:edit conflict
500:
496:
492:
488:
485:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
461:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
446:
442:
438:
434:
429:
422:
418:
413:
409:
405:
404:
402:
401:
399:
395:
391:
390:
389:
388:
384:
380:
376:
373:
369:
365:
362:
361:
355:
351:
347:
343:
340:
336:
332:
325:
321:
314:
310:
305:
304:
303:
302:
298:
294:
289:
288:
287:
286:
282:
278:
272:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
262:
258:
251:
247:
246:
241:
238:
235:
234:
229:
226:
223:
222:
217:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
178:
174:
170:
169:
168:
167:
164:
162:
161:
155:
154:
148:
145:
143:
140:
139:
132:
123:
120:
118:
115:
113:
110:
108:
105:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
77:
76:
71:
68:
65:
64:
59:
52:
50:
46:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
800:
781:
757:
675:
669:
563:
510:
411:
255:
243:
239:
231:
227:
219:
215:
183:
158:
156:
61:
57:
55:
48:
31:
28:
805:BlueMoonset
681:BlueMoonset
627:AH, it was
568:BlueMoonset
533:BlueMoonset
487:BlueMoonset
473:BlueMoonset
392:Last hope.
313:Tokyogirl79
309:Yngvadottir
257:Yngvadottir
187:Tokyogirl79
185:Created by
122:Hook length
73:DYK toolbox
171:Reviewed:
648:Hafspajen
637:Hafspajen
606:Hafspajen
560:Hafspajen
537:Hafspajen
520:Hafspajen
491:Prioryman
465:Hafspajen
441:Hafspajen
417:Prioryman
394:Hafspajen
364:Prioryman
350:Hafspajen
335:Hafspajen
293:Hafspajen
277:Prioryman
242:... that
218:... that
203:Hafspajen
157:... that
97:QPQ check
82:DYK check
822:Category
58:promoted
765:Fuebaey
748:Girona7
709:Fuebaey
672:Fuebaey
320:Fuebaey
721:Drmies
702:Drmies
685:Drmies
676:widely
495:Drmies
469:Drmies
379:Drmies
368:Drmies
346:Drmies
195:Drmies
63:Allen3
787:Sionk
318:fix.
250:Linux
248:runs
160:girls
16:<
809:talk
801:Note
791:talk
782:ALT2
769:talk
752:talk
725:talk
713:talk
689:talk
652:talk
641:talk
610:talk
572:talk
541:talk
524:talk
499:talk
477:talk
445:talk
421:talk
398:talk
383:talk
372:talk
354:talk
339:talk
324:talk
311:and
297:talk
281:talk
261:talk
240:ALT3
228:ALT2
216:ALT1
207:talk
199:talk
191:talk
596:,
585:;
535:..
412:one
193:).
60:by
43:or
824::
600:,
439:.
211:.
137:(
39:,
807:(
789:(
767:(
754:)
750:(
723:(
711:(
704::
700:@
687:(
650:(
639:(
608:(
570:(
564:I
557:)
553:(
539:(
522:(
516:)
512:(
497:(
475:(
443:(
419:(
396:(
381:(
370:(
352:(
337:(
322:(
315::
307:@
295:(
279:(
259:(
252:?
205:(
197:(
189:(
152:)
51:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.