Talk:Alison Creagh

Did you know nomination

The following 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 reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 17:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Alison Creagh

• ... that Alison Creagh (pictured) became a Member of the Order of Australia "for significant service to veterans and their families, and to rowing"? Source: https://www.gg.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-07/QB20%20Gazette%20-%20O%20of%20A%20V6.pdf
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Breen

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 431 past nominations.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC).

• Comment (not a review). The COI banner on the article (with circumstances detailed on the article talk page) needs to be resolved before this can feature in DYK. Cleanup banners are not intended as a permanent mark of shame for articles, but rather to indicate that something can and should be cleaned up. The question then becomes: do the circumstances described on the talk page mean that there is a COI that should be cleaned up? What must be done to the article to clean it up so this banner can be removed? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  WP:WTRMT: neutrality-related templates such as {{COI}} (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) or {{POV}} (associated with the neutral point of view policy) strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Do you dispute the COI? Or should I have placed a "paid editor" tag instead? This DYK should siomply be closed, as we shouldn't have such "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" promotion. To quote from a question (not from me) from your 2019 RfA: "In one of the arbitration cases which resulted in a finding against you, there was a finding involving an undisclosed conflict-of-interest that resulted in serious subversion of the FA process. " We here have the same editor with an undisclosed COI at DYK. Here you start wikiwlawyering about the tag (even though I started a discussion about it on the talk page right away, where you haven't responded). Fram (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  There was no such finding, and there was no undisclosed COI. What there is is an editor pursuing a pattern of harassment that got them blocked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Are you really claiming that you have no COI wrt this article now? Or that the finding (passed 10 to 0) that " Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) has a previously undisclosed conflict of interest [...]" didn't exist? Or both? Fram (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  There was no undisclosed conflict of interest. I have never edited for pay. I was an unpaid Wikipedian in Residence with Paralympics Australia. I have only met the brigadier twice: at the Boccia, where the Chef de Mission introduced us and we talked about our work at Paris 2024, and at the Rowing three days later, when I asked for a photograph, which I took and is used in the article. Please cease the personal attacks on myself and David Eppstein, who was only posting a comment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  An organisation offers you all kind of help so you can write better or more articles about an event they are heavily involved in, and you then write an article about the CEO of that organisation. How is that not a blatant COI? And I have not made any personal attacks about you, and I haven't made any comment whatsoever about David Eppstein, so I have no idea where you see any personal attacks on them. Anyway, I'll raise this at the COIN board. Fram (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Without getting into whether or not this should run, WP:DYKTAG explicitly allows articles with COI tags.--Launchballer 23:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

For context, reviewers should be aware of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Alison Creagh.--Launchballer 04:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Currently at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 214#Alison Creagh

@Hawkeye7: This is currently the oldest fully unreviewed nomination and PEIS is exceeded at T:TDYK, so I'm reviewing. Long enough, new enough. QPQ is valid, though you should take more care to place comments above the closing }}. Not that it was ever an issue per my comment above, but I've removed the COI tag anyway per the talk page. Earwig gobs off about names and WP:LIMITED but having investigated I see no issue with that or anything that might disqualify this here. The hook is short enough, cited, and interesting; while I would invite you to use a secondary source instead, the Honours List itself should be fine and googling around I see a bunch of RSs that have it anyway. Let's roll. Also, commiserations on your RfA - please don't let that discourage you from queuing.--Launchballer 13:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure this strictly violates any particular DYK policy, but I don't think this article should be promoted. The article is basically a proselist of positions she's held and when and where, like a resume. Looking at the sources, I'm pretty troubled by the spread here. I see Australian government sources for her getting an award from the Australian government, a couple of "about us" webpages, proselist sources of dubious reliability, and an interview. The Australian War Memorial source is the only one to actually do a real profile of Creagh, and it's a newsblog. If someone else wants to promote this, feel free, but I wanted to note my queasiness. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTPROMO says, "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." I think that the article, as an article, probably meets this bar. I think that running it on the main page would fall below that bar though. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm also going to opine that this is a bit too promotional for DYK. As Leaky says, it's pretty much a resume, and the sourcing is a problem; the ABC source is solid, but most of the rest are too close to the subject for my taste. As far as the COI/WIR aspect is concerned, I chatted off-wiki with a WIR whose opinion I respect greatly and it sounds like this sort of personal promotion isn't really what the WIR program is about. DYK has more submissions than we can handle, no need to be running stuff that's questionable. RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Closing this per WP:DYKTIMEOUT.--Launchballer 17:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

COI tag (September 2024)

Page creator has been sent to the 2024 Paralympics as a media representative by Paralympics Australia, and then creates an article about the president of that organisation... Fram (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the COI tag is supposed to be used when there is something actionable that was caused by COI and can be fixed by editing. Is there anything to fix here? Does the article violate WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:PROMO tone, etc? If not, removal of the tag should be considered. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The COI tag is also to be used when there is an undisclosed COI (or even with a disclosed COI where the editor created or expanded the article against COI guidance anyway) and indicates that uninvolved, neutral editors should give extra scrutiny. If you feel that the COI hasn't lead to problematic content (or e.g. the omission of controversies, negative info, ..., which I don't think is an issue here but is a typical COI problem), then per the tag guidance you are free to remove it (but thank you for checking here first). Fram (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)