- 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: rejected by Allen3 talk 15:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Infant clothing edit
... that infant clothing can cause death or injury to an infant?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dog and Duck (tavern) Mindmatrix 17:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Created by Mindmatrix (talk). Self nominated at 22:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC).
I'll add this for convenience.
Pending issues: QPQ not done, orange tag present. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 05:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- The tag applied has no effect on DYK. The point of DYK is to introduce a new concept to WP, not to introduce a new concept with a full and broad discussion about all its aspects. The main DYK rules are highlighted above the editing box for each nomination. It should be judged solely on those criteria. Mindmatrix 17:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Time for fresh eyes? --00:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't object to it going to DYK with the tag. Alternatively a change of name to reflect the scope would justify the removal of the tag. Johnbod (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I do object. DYK articles are in the window of our shop and should advertise us--DYK is already about half US-related, and sending an article on with a tag like that does not do us any favors. The irony is that this article is much better than the average DYK nomination. But, as Johnbod suggests, a change in title or scope would justify removal of the tag. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't object to it going to DYK with the tag. Alternatively a change of name to reflect the scope would justify the removal of the tag. Johnbod (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The hook seems weak. And this issue of infant death seems quite controversial, requiring good sources and balance per WP:MEDRS. One can easily imagine new parents ending up at this article by following the redirect baby clothes. Given this, it seems bizarre that the article doesn't even mention nappies (diapers). I suggest that the best way forward for this topic is for it to pass a GA review so that we can be comfortable with it being showcased on the main page. Warden (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Per User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, Inline citation #1 comes up as a HarvRef error. Seems to be a formatting issue, as there is no "author" for it to point to. — Maile (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- This nomination has two problems: commenters agree that the hook is weak, and that the article as constituted has a scope problem. It has been proposed that the article have a change in title or scope to deal with the latter issue, and an ALT hook should be proposed to deal with the former—I've struck the original hook. (The ref issue is not germane, and should have been brought up on the article talk page, not here.) Something needs to be done to address these issues soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
It's been over a week since the nominator was notified, and three weeks since Drmies pointed out the problem promoting it with the current template (and what the options were). Absent any action, this nomination is being closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
