- 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 PFHLai (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
GLOBE at Night edit
- ... that the GLOBE at Night project wants you to become a citizen scientist by quantifying light pollution where you live?
- Comment: If consensus is reached to post it, it would be great to post it sooner rather than later, as the next measurement period runs from March 13 until March 22
Created/expanded by Anotherdoon (talk) and Iridia (talk). Self nom at 12:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Suggested hook is blatant advertising, which the comment makes all the more obvious. Article needs work, including references, removal of external links from the running text, and more neutral wording. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- As an alternate hook, perhaps "... that the GLOBE at Night project enables ordinary people to become citizen scientists by quantifying light pollution where they live? My longer response to Crisco 1492 is here: User_talk:Crisco_1492#GLOBE_at_Night. What is an acceptable number of references? I thought 12, plus links to the official page wasn't so bad! Anotherdoon (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- ALT2 "... that citizen scientists report light pollution measurements to the GLOBE at Night project by observing the constellation Orion (pictured)?"
- ALT3 "... that citizen scientists provided the GLOBE at Night project with over 14,000 light pollution measurements in 2011?"
- I've read through the article over and over again, but other than that original first line I can't understand why you've tagged it with "This article appears to be written like an advertisement." It doesn't seem like it could be the "goals" section, since for example, in the article Electronic_Frontier_Foundation its goals actually come above the table of contents. The "methods" section simply describes how it works, and in fact includes a section on how the GLOBE at Night measurements aren't actually light pollution measurements (which could reasonably be construed as a criticism of the program), the "reasons for concern" provides the context for why the project exists, the "conversion" section is simply data, and "history" is basically a required section when discussing an organization. It doesn't say anywhere that the project is great or wonderful or awesome, which is what you would presumably expect if it was an advertisement. It used to say you could take part, which I guess violates WP:SOAP? But you already took that out, and I added it in just so that the hook line would be in the article.Anotherdoon (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- You (note the bolding) was my big concern, especially with the hook. ALT2 and ALT3 are nice (I prefer ALT2). For referencing, you should have at least one reference per paragraph for DYK. Almost there now that you've fixed the running external links, just one paragraph in "Reasons for concern about light pollution" to be referenced. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- done, very easy since the refs were already on the two main pages listed. Going offline now Anotherdoon (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll take a further look later. Another reference issue has been indicated by another editor. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- FNs 5-7, 9, 11 should have a publisher. Looking at this, most of the information about GLOBE at night is from their site. Any more secondary references? Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't know who to put for the publisher for a webpage? GLOBE at Night? I will look into some other secondary refs, but my time for this is getting extremely limited. Anotherdoon (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's right. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- The page was completely reworked (and hugely improved) by Iridia and I added additional refs to all but one of the cited facts about GLOBE at Night (the only other one I couldn't find was that their webpage lists the number of observations per year. But who is going to mention that in a newspaper article?). Hope it's up to scratch now! Anotherdoon (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that Iridia did a huge job, so I'll add a DYK credit. Hooks (ALT1-3): I much prefer ALT1 now. ALT2: Orion is just one of the constellations used, so no good. ALT1 and 3 are in the article. ALT3 is cited, as is ALT1.
- Article: New enough, long enough. Referencing is thorough and up to par. Paraphrasing check is okay, AGF on offline sources.
- Summary:
Good to go with ALT1 or ALT3! Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
