- 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 PumpkinSky talk 20:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Chua Soo Bin
edit- ... that Singaporean photographer and Cultural Medallion winner Chua Soo Bin owns two villas, five warehouses, above twenty luxury watches and more than a hundred bottles of wine?
Created by Bonkers The Clown (talk). Self nominated at 09:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC).
Date, size, refs are fine, but I have concerns over the hook neutrality. Focusing on someone's personal wealth is problematic, particularly if this is not the main thing he is know for. I'd ask for another hook, or we can defer this to WP:BLPN or a second reviewer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- While I have no qualms over suggesting an alt, I do feel that the current hook is the most interesting... Furthermore, it is not slanted in perspective and it is neutral, in my opinion – merely reporting valid facts reported by a reputable and reliable source. Very often the "interesting" aspects of people are the things they are not widely known for. For instance, did you know that Hitler only had one testicle? Something along that line... A second reviewer would be good, yes. Thanks for reviewing anyway. Cheers, --☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I see your point, and I agree that the current hook is interesting, but nonetheless many see wealth as something bad, and this is drawing attention to this aspect of the BLP. Perhaps I am overreacting, that's why I am asking for a 3O. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- If i am the third opinion, i am rejecting it too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I see your point, and I agree that the current hook is interesting, but nonetheless many see wealth as something bad, and this is drawing attention to this aspect of the BLP. Perhaps I am overreacting, that's why I am asking for a 3O. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Alright then. Of you really insist, how about... ALT1: ... that Singaporean photographer Chua Soo Bin has been cited as "one of the most sought-after commercial photographers" in Singapore? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't that just a point of view of a newspaper reporter rather than a fact? And also its little interesting to me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hence the keywords cited and the quotation marks. A similar nom that successfully made it on the main – Template:Did you know nominations/Tang Qunying. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's no reason to justify that it should be done again. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- And Template:Did you know nominations/Tang Shu-wing, Template:Did you know nominations/Akokan (album), etc. etc. Seriously... OTHERCRAP is an essay, not a policy. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am not giving it a green tick even if you sit and write an FA on how POVs are promoted as DYK. Some news reporter's opinion is simply not interesting enough and not notable also to feature on main page. Rest Piotrus can decide. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I do not see eye to eye on that with you. Somebody propose a resolution... Quick! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am not giving it a green tick even if you sit and write an FA on how POVs are promoted as DYK. Some news reporter's opinion is simply not interesting enough and not notable also to feature on main page. Rest Piotrus can decide. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- And Template:Did you know nominations/Tang Shu-wing, Template:Did you know nominations/Akokan (album), etc. etc. Seriously... OTHERCRAP is an essay, not a policy. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's no reason to justify that it should be done again. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hence the keywords cited and the quotation marks. A similar nom that successfully made it on the main – Template:Did you know nominations/Tang Qunying. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't that just a point of view of a newspaper reporter rather than a fact? And also its little interesting to me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Pax my respected colleagues, this needs a review. That someone wrote something about another person is an objective fact. The contents are that person's POV, not Wikipedia's, and as such is neutral. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
ALT1 is fine. Date, length, and compliance with policy check out. Fact is supported by an inline re and sufficiently interesting. For future reference, I have gotten very poor hit #s when I used a quote as my fact, so it might be in your own best interest (but not a requiredment to choose other facts when possible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
