Template:Did you know nominations/Wild Cub/Thunder Clatter
- 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: promoted by Allen3 talk 11:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Wild Cub, Thunder Clatter edit
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that Wild Cub's song "Thunder Clatter" charted in the UK after being featured in a Bose commercial?
Created by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 21:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC).
- I believe the Bose needs to be linked, since many readers won't know what that is:
- ALT1 ... that Wild Cub's song "Thunder Clatter" charted in the UK after being featured in a Bose advertisement?
- Another possibility is to vague-ify that detail:
- ALT2 ... that Wild Cub's song "Thunder Clatter" charted in the UK after being featured in an audio-equipment advertisement?
ALT3 ... that Wild Cub's song "Thunder Clatter" charted in the UK after being featured in a television advertisement?- It's funny you should say that; I believe it should not be linked, because there is a link on the article version of the hook and because it has never been DYK eligible (it was written before DYK existed). The source explicitly states "Bose commercial" and given how much is known about the subject (i.e. it's a big B-class article) I think it's fairly common knowledge. Plus if there are any doubts, all one has to do is click either article and the link is there.--Launchballer 13:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Check the DYKs on the main page any hour of the day or night to see how confused you are about this. EEng (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, I've had a look and I am appalled. The idea of DYK is to promote new/expanded articles, and so to include a link to anything else distracts from that purpose. However, as everyone else seems to be doing it I will accept ALT1.--Launchballer 06:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- How did you become so convinced of what the philosophy of DRK is without, apparently, having every seen it on the main page? Maybe the idea of DYK is to have some fun stuff on the main page, and "newest content" was just a convenient way to keep it from being a no-my-trivia's-better free-for-all. EEng (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- From reading Wikipedia:Did you know.--Launchballer 15:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- How did you become so convinced of what the philosophy of DRK is without, apparently, having every seen it on the main page? Maybe the idea of DYK is to have some fun stuff on the main page, and "newest content" was just a convenient way to keep it from being a no-my-trivia's-better free-for-all. EEng (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, I've had a look and I am appalled. The idea of DYK is to promote new/expanded articles, and so to include a link to anything else distracts from that purpose. However, as everyone else seems to be doing it I will accept ALT1.--Launchballer 06:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- Check the DYKs on the main page any hour of the day or night to see how confused you are about this. EEng (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's funny you should say that; I believe it should not be linked, because there is a link on the article version of the hook and because it has never been DYK eligible (it was written before DYK existed). The source explicitly states "Bose commercial" and given how much is known about the subject (i.e. it's a big B-class article) I think it's fairly common knowledge. Plus if there are any doubts, all one has to do is click either article and the link is there.--Launchballer 13:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Full nomination review needed. There are various philosophies on whether to have non-bold links in hooks, with some feeling that zero, if possible, is best, but others favoring linking of terms that are likely to be unfamiliar or important to the understanding of the hook. DYK eligibility of non-bold links is irrelevant. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- That was the primary motive behind my ALT2/ALT3 (plus I think we should avoid giving commercial interests incidental "exposure windfalls" when they're not really part of the hook).
- I wonder if you'd agree with the following: all other things being equal, a hook which avoids terms which would require linking (in order to avoid puzzling some readers) is better than a hook which has such terms. (Note I said All other things being equal -- sometimes including such a term, with link, makes the hook more fun and educational. The complaint that non-bold links reduce the click-count for the bold link assumes that the purpose of DYK is to help editors get on some "most popular DYK article list", which it isn't.) But no matter what, if in the end the hook includes a term that many readers won't understand, that term needs to be linked -- we don't want substantial numbers of readers saying, "I don't know what that is -- why the didn't they link it?" EEng (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- But what you didn't do is review the two articles involved, and this is, frankly, a bit of a side discussion that's getting in the way of someone actually reviewing the nomination. Please feel free to take this to WT:DYK for a wider discussion; in this specific case, since "commercial" is the key word here—it's music in a commercial—the company name is basically irrelevant: harms nothing by being there, and may be recognized, possibly increasing the hook's appeal; I'm not worried about the one word being a windfall, especially when it isn't linked. (Since comments below the "review again" icon are viewed as someone starting the review, if you have a further response, please make it above the renewed call for a reviewer below. Many thanks.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's a fairly psychological thing; my articles are literally this side of 1,500 characters. The Bose article is on the border of 15,000 characters and so rather put mine to shame. However, BlueMoonset is correct; this is a side issue, and I would review the articles to confirm acceptability before selecting a hook.--Launchballer 17:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have volunteered to review except I was told recently I can't do that if I wrote one of the hooks. I think my contribution here has been misinterpreted, and I had no idea that by commenting I was holding anything up. Just since there seemed to be confusion over what should and should not be linked I wanted to check my understanding against others' (at least the few talking here). It's no big deal to me. I am surprised, though, that B-m-s doesn't see a problem with having the word Bose unlinked -- as I said, certainly some real proportion of readers won't know what that is, and they should be able to click on it if they want to. The bold link, near the front of the hook, undoubtedly will get the most clicks, though. Like, I said, no big deal. EEng (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're not allowed to review your own hooks, but you could review the articles and the original hook, and leave it to someone else to sort out which hooks are best. I do understand that this is not very satisfying when you can't give it a final approval. I didn't think you realized that comments below a "review again" icon are taken—by people who are looking for a nomination to review—as indication that someone is already interesting in reviewing: they're doing a quick scan by icon, so they blip over without even reading what's going on. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think the easiest way of doing this is as follows: EEng, if you review the article, and BlueMoonset, you review the hooks. How does that sound?--Launchballer 20:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- You're not allowed to review your own hooks, but you could review the articles and the original hook, and leave it to someone else to sort out which hooks are best. I do understand that this is not very satisfying when you can't give it a final approval. I didn't think you realized that comments below a "review again" icon are taken—by people who are looking for a nomination to review—as indication that someone is already interesting in reviewing: they're doing a quick scan by icon, so they blip over without even reading what's going on. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'd have volunteered to review except I was told recently I can't do that if I wrote one of the hooks. I think my contribution here has been misinterpreted, and I had no idea that by commenting I was holding anything up. Just since there seemed to be confusion over what should and should not be linked I wanted to check my understanding against others' (at least the few talking here). It's no big deal to me. I am surprised, though, that B-m-s doesn't see a problem with having the word Bose unlinked -- as I said, certainly some real proportion of readers won't know what that is, and they should be able to click on it if they want to. The bold link, near the front of the hook, undoubtedly will get the most clicks, though. Like, I said, no big deal. EEng (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's a fairly psychological thing; my articles are literally this side of 1,500 characters. The Bose article is on the border of 15,000 characters and so rather put mine to shame. However, BlueMoonset is correct; this is a side issue, and I would review the articles to confirm acceptability before selecting a hook.--Launchballer 17:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- But what you didn't do is review the two articles involved, and this is, frankly, a bit of a side discussion that's getting in the way of someone actually reviewing the nomination. Please feel free to take this to WT:DYK for a wider discussion; in this specific case, since "commercial" is the key word here—it's music in a commercial—the company name is basically irrelevant: harms nothing by being there, and may be recognized, possibly increasing the hook's appeal; I'm not worried about the one word being a windfall, especially when it isn't linked. (Since comments below the "review again" icon are viewed as someone starting the review, if you have a further response, please make it above the renewed call for a reviewer below. Many thanks.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Full review still needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Reviewers frequently end up doing some minor copyediting to the DYK article they're working on, just like they do for GA: it's usually easier to make minor fixes than to specify what needs changing. I'm happy to mentor your first reviews here—it's unusual to start with a multi-article review, but certainly doable, since both are on the short side. Take a crack at the original hook, too, at least in terms of sourcing; I'll be happy to go over the final results, and to vet the hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I made a pass over Wild Cub -- there were some serious problems at the basic stylistic level (sorry if this comes across as harsh -- not meant to be). Fundamentally there's not enough material for two separate articles, but that can be solved with a merge. See Talk:Wild Cub. Please let me know if I'm off base. EEng (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the stylistic problems. The final paragraph of the Wild Cub article is highly problematic, with its list of unlinked festival names (including SXSW, aka South by Southwest, a major music festival in Austin), and a list of publications where they've been mentioned. If the mention is notable, then some description of what the publication thinks of the band might be in order; if it's not worth describing, then it's not notable enough to list them. If all the issues you've tagged are dealt with, the article could expand back to above 1500 prose characters, and even if not, I imagine that enough information could be found. There's at least one major factual error: Youth was released in the US in 2012, not 2013 (and in the UK in early 2013).
- I'm more concerned by the "Thunder Clatter" article, and apologize for working on it before you could get there. There were two very large quotes which, by WP:MOSQUOTE, were of the size that meant they needed to be blockquotes. Blockquotes, unfortunately, are not considered prose characters for DYK purposes. (The idea is that extensive quotes are not original material, and thus don't count as new prose.) The article now stands at just under 1000 prose characters, meaning over 500 additional ones must be found. Until Launchballer can expand the article, there isn't much point in you reviewing it, since you'd just have to do so again once it was expanded by over half. The date given for the release of the single is suspect: the January 14 date is the UK release date of Youth, and the music video was being reviewed in December 2012.
- Both articles need significant work. I think they can ultimately stand on their own; a merge of a group and a single aren't generally a comfortable fit. However, even though they might stand on their own, one or both may end up too short to qualify for DYK. If only one qualifies, we can easily unbold the other one and still run a hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- No apology needed -- I stopped after Wild Cub to see whether I was on the right track. I think the thing to do is for the creating editor to add additional material to both articles. I have to say I've never understood this DYK obsession with "new content" -- it almost requires that nominated articles be hurried and underdeveloped. EEng (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. I don't see why a merge won't work, esp. if it will save this DYK -- I'd hate to disappoint the article creator unnecessarily, and I think it will make a better presentation of the material. But I guess we can see if he/she can beef at least one of them up.
- The problematic source is AllMusic, which uses some 'technical' terms without qualifying them. That is a problematic area of both articles. I think we should concentrate on Wild Cub first and then on Thunder Clatter.--Launchballer 20:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- Make sure you find enough new material to bring at least one article to min length. Maybe you could say a little about the background / prior musical career of each of the other four. EEng (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- That shouldn't be too much of an issue, although I would prefer to wait until Thunder Clatter is up to 1,500 characters so I get DYK credits for it. As for saying about the previous members' musical career, I tried that...--Launchballer 09:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand. What isn't much of an issue? Doesn't an article have to be min 1500 to qualify for DYK? I didn't check but I think Wild Cub is below that, and I haven't gone over the other. (Wild Cub being short is in a way my fault, but it was just too padded before -- duplicate stuff and so on.) What I was saying is that more background on the members is one way to increase length. Am I mixed up somehow? EEng (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- That shouldn't be too much of an issue, although I would prefer to wait until Thunder Clatter is up to 1,500 characters so I get DYK credits for it. As for saying about the previous members' musical career, I tried that...--Launchballer 09:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Make sure you find enough new material to bring at least one article to min length. Maybe you could say a little about the background / prior musical career of each of the other four. EEng (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- The problematic source is AllMusic, which uses some 'technical' terms without qualifying them. That is a problematic area of both articles. I think we should concentrate on Wild Cub first and then on Thunder Clatter.--Launchballer 20:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- No apology needed -- I stopped after Wild Cub to see whether I was on the right track. I think the thing to do is for the creating editor to add additional material to both articles. I have to say I've never understood this DYK obsession with "new content" -- it almost requires that nominated articles be hurried and underdeveloped. EEng (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC) P.S. I don't see why a merge won't work, esp. if it will save this DYK -- I'd hate to disappoint the article creator unnecessarily, and I think it will make a better presentation of the material. But I guess we can see if he/she can beef at least one of them up.
Pardon me... You tried adding information on the members but... what happened? Do you mean this edit [1] apparently by DeWitt himself? BlueMoonset, do we have a problem here? EEng (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- It was one edit which even had a source provided to correct a factual flaw, nothing which requires a {{COI}} tag.--Launchballer 14:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a problem with DeWitt's edit, especially a sourced correction about another source that got it wrong. I've just made some edits to Wild Cub; it's now at 1513 prose characters, a borderline length, and added a couple of "dubious" templates to it: please see the article's Talk page for the issues. The article doesn't quite hold together as yet: some information is contradictory, and needs to be reconciled. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, EEng. There's no reason why these reviews can't proceed in parallel. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
: Both articles: new; long enough; neutral "enough" (a bit fawning, but this is hard to avoid in articles like this); no copyvio etc. Hooks fine (I've struck ALT3 because it wasn't strictly a TV campaign only); inline cite double-checked. BlueMoonset, please spotcheck as this is my first review. EEng (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Good call on the QPQ, EEng. (Look up at the box in the top righthand side of this page when you're editing; one of the five is a QPQ check. When you click on it, a form comes up with the field pre-seeded with the "User talk:" prefix; add the username and it will list the number of successful DYKs it finds.) What it shows is that Launchballer has four successful DYKs to date. Officially you get five freebies, so one of these articles would be the fifth freebie, and the other requires a first QPQ. Launchballer, be sure to post a link to the nomination template you review, so this nomination can fully pass. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've had a go at reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/2013 Grand Prix of Baltimore, but could you just double-check? I think me and EEng are in the same boat here.--Launchballer 07:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
With the long quote properly blockquoted, Thunder Clatter is short of the 1500-character minimum. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Aw, come on! I thought I had this one done and dusted. How come BlueMoonset didn't pick up on that at the time?--Launchballer 07:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- This just highlights -- as if abundant examples didn't present themselves every single day -- of how bankrupt the DYK criteria are, with their insistence on forcing editors to nominate slapdash, undeveloped "new" content within 5 days -- what does that achieve? -- and then fussing over character counts and inline versus blockquotes and other silly stuff, not to mention insisting that week-old articles "not appear to be works in progress" (demanding the elimination of [clarification needed] and similar templates which invite others to improve the article) when they obviously cannot be other than works in progress. (This is not a criticism of this specific article or of Launchballer, who was just following the rules, stupid as they are.)
The quote is well within the zone of discretion for being set off in a block versus run inline. I've run it back inline as it was before, and reapproving. EEng (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nope - the point of promoting "new" content is that it be original content, which this largely is not. If you'd like to change some of DYK's rules, WT:DYK is thataway. And if you'd like to speak of "zone of discretion", at 1506 characters even with the over-long quote inline, this is well within the "articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting reviewers" zone. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- For crying out loud. I've read WP:MOSQUOTE again. It recommends quotes above 40 words should be put in blockquotes. I've split up the quote such that it is now 39 words. Happy now?--Launchballer 15:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your edits, BlueMoonset. Although this article is still quite short and incomplete, it's probably enough to just meet the DYK criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)