Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Allen Fox
- 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: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Michael Allen Fox edit
- ...
that the philosopher Michael Allen Fox became highly critical of animal testing soon after the publication of his The Case for Animal Experimentation, and went on to write critiques of animal testing and a book in support of vegetarianism?
Created by J Milburn (talk). Self-nominated at 23:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC).
-
- Yes, sorry. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that the philosopher Michael Fox became highly critical of animal testing following the publication of his The Case for Animal Experimentation, later writing a book in support of vegetarianism?
- Reviewed/reviewing: Alice Brock. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Full review needed now that hook is set. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Review
- Article is long enough (4493 characters) and new enough, moved from user space on November 19 and nominated the same day.
- Article is stable, neutral, and sufficiently referenced. The referencing would be better if it was improved - books have no isbns, some journal refs lack pages, link in 19 doesn't get to the article (though the whole issue is available on PDF at https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/pir/article/download/5615/2311), no doi for ref 4 (it is 10.15368/bts.1987v3n2.1), no doi for ref 9 (it is 10.1016/0968-0004(86)90168-4) and the title is truncated, etc. Such issues are not reason to hold up the nomination as there is sufficient to find the sources and they are not bare urls, but I think the referencing should be addressed.
- The elements in the hook are included in the article, supported by refs 4, 13, and 14. ALT1 is under 200 characters and is interesting.
- QPQ review of Alice Brock does not address every criterion - no mention of copyvio check, for example, though my own check shows no problem in this regard. The Brock article was on the main page without any problems, as far as I am aware, though TRM noted several places where citations were needed, one an unreferenced stand-alone sentence which counts as an unreferenced paragraph under DYK rules. Two of these were addressed before the article went to the main page, two are still in the article, so technically the Brock hook should have been pulled. I'll accept this QPQ credit but ask that future reviews make mention of the five main criteria and consider all the rules.
- Copyvio is not an issue, the phrases Earwig's tool highlights are full titles of publications which cannot be paraphrased. No issues with paraphrasing noted. Direct quotations are in sources but not referenced at each occurrence, instead appearing at the end of later sentences where the reference applies to all. This is not a practice I like to see with direct quotations, but DYK rules do not forbid it unless the quotation is in the hook, in which case an immediate citation is required.
ALT1 approved, with the I hope the nominator / editor (J Milburn) will consider the referencing improvements and QPQ review issues raised here. EdChem (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I have added the DOIs, but I am not a fan of ISBNs in references; it's not something often seen anywhere but Wikipedia. Noted concerning the Brock check, but I would like to say that a failure to mention copyvios does not equate to a failure to look for them; as you say, there was no problem with copyvio, and I did spend some time with the article, as my edits will show. I do not understand your "unreferenced paragraph" claim, as this seems to be nothing to do with the DYK eligibility criteria. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I find ISBNs useful in connecting to the relevant edition in Google Books, which sometimes is helpful for checking sources. I prefer them to be provided, but I can't make you include them and, as I said, there presence or absence is not going to alter the approval of this nomination. The same is true for doi links, though these are much more useful.Regarding the Brock check, I have had the recent experience of being hounded over not mentioning a copyvio check, and whilst that was unreasonable, I think explicitly addressing the main criteria in a review is good practice. If a review doesn't cover all the basics, then others can't know if they were checked or not. I don't doubt that you looked at the article thoroughly, I'm just suggesting that it is helpful to others to state what you have checked. DYK is (slowly) becoming more formal about this because there are too many poor reviews missing important issues (not the case here, I hasten to add) and I think that well documented reviews provide suitable models from which newer reviewers can learn.On the subject of the "unreferenced paragraph" in the Brock article, the sentence / paragraph in question is in the Alice Brock#Retirement section and reads "In addition to the Cookbook, Brock has also authored two other books: her 1976 autobiography, My Life as a Restaurant; and a children's book, How to Massage Your Cat. She also illustrated another children's book, Mooses Come Walking, written by Arlo Guthrie.[citation needed]" The cn tag was added by TRM here and is still in the article. Adding references to each of the three books would be easy and I am not sure I would have added a tag. However, the supplementary guidelines do request every paragraph include a reference (D2). I'm just making some observations and comments in the hope you reflect on them and take on board anything you find useful. EdChem (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I confess I'm not particularly impressed with the supplementary DYK criteria or the addition of that "citation needed" tag, but I'll think more on it. I do like DOIs in general, but didn't include them while writing this article for whatever reason. I may go back and add them. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- I find ISBNs useful in connecting to the relevant edition in Google Books, which sometimes is helpful for checking sources. I prefer them to be provided, but I can't make you include them and, as I said, there presence or absence is not going to alter the approval of this nomination. The same is true for doi links, though these are much more useful.Regarding the Brock check, I have had the recent experience of being hounded over not mentioning a copyvio check, and whilst that was unreasonable, I think explicitly addressing the main criteria in a review is good practice. If a review doesn't cover all the basics, then others can't know if they were checked or not. I don't doubt that you looked at the article thoroughly, I'm just suggesting that it is helpful to others to state what you have checked. DYK is (slowly) becoming more formal about this because there are too many poor reviews missing important issues (not the case here, I hasten to add) and I think that well documented reviews provide suitable models from which newer reviewers can learn.On the subject of the "unreferenced paragraph" in the Brock article, the sentence / paragraph in question is in the Alice Brock#Retirement section and reads "In addition to the Cookbook, Brock has also authored two other books: her 1976 autobiography, My Life as a Restaurant; and a children's book, How to Massage Your Cat. She also illustrated another children's book, Mooses Come Walking, written by Arlo Guthrie.[citation needed]" The cn tag was added by TRM here and is still in the article. Adding references to each of the three books would be easy and I am not sure I would have added a tag. However, the supplementary guidelines do request every paragraph include a reference (D2). I'm just making some observations and comments in the hope you reflect on them and take on board anything you find useful. EdChem (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I have added the DOIs, but I am not a fan of ISBNs in references; it's not something often seen anywhere but Wikipedia. Noted concerning the Brock check, but I would like to say that a failure to mention copyvios does not equate to a failure to look for them; as you say, there was no problem with copyvio, and I did spend some time with the article, as my edits will show. I do not understand your "unreferenced paragraph" claim, as this seems to be nothing to do with the DYK eligibility criteria. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
