Open main menu

Template:Did you know nominations/Omar Mateen, Pulse (nightclub)

< Template:Did you know nominations
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) 05:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Pulse (nightclub), Omar MateenEdit

Omar Mateen
Omar Mateen

Created by Another Believer (talk) and Jujutsuan (talk). Nominated by Donnie Park (talk) at 23:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Mateen article does not explicitly say he was a regular and contains a quote explicitly saying that he was not a regular. Needs work. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Thank you, Donnie Park. I didn't know Mateen was in a documentary. But wasn't this the deadliest shooting ever in the U.S.? (The article didn't say it was the deadliest shooting in a nightclub. Was it?) Date is fine, length is great. Earwig's finds two hits for copyvios that will need to be fixed. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Also I would add (pictured) after Mateen's name when you get a final hook. -SusanLesch (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • You have my attention. Do I need to do anything? First time DYK for me. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 18:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Hi, Jujutsuan. Donnie Park nominated this article. It looks good. The date and length make it eligible for DYK. The only thing we need is to get rid of the copyright violations. You see the menu above right, DYK Toolbox. In there is Earwig's Copyvio Detector. We need the first two hits Earwig's finds (which register as likely copyvios) fixed. This won't take long. You can run Earwig's until the results look better. Does that make sense? Then we'll just need to write the hook to be a true fact with a reliable source. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @SusanLesch: I've fixed the seventy-something percent confidence match; the forty-something percent match only registers properly attributed quotations and a few short, simple phrases that would be awkward to rephrase. I think the copyright side of this is good now. Time to move on to writing the hook, then? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 21:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Jujutsuan. I think in the case of a 40-something percent match (and 30-somethings) that our article could at least acknowledge the source. You know, the Associated Press actually paid those authors to track down Mateen's third (and seventh) grade teacher. Then yes we need a hook. ALT1 was pretty close, it just needs to be accurate. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@SusanLesch: IMO the sources are properly acknowledged by virtue of being listed as references. The authors aren't particularly notable by themselves and really don't deserve mention by name. If we put "According to ____" in front of every fact in the article, things would get quite unmanageable, quite quickly.
I've edited ALT1, removing the mention of Pulse—that's in the main article—and making some small stylistic improvements. Is this suitable? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 21:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Edited ALT1 again, adding an aspect. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 21:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Symbol confirmed.svg Ready to go. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@SusanLesch: So what do we do now? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Jujutsuan I added "Associated Press and The Washington Post reported" to the most obvious quoting of quotes. It looks like people have other concerns. When they're taken care of you are done. I get off here. Good luck. -SusanLesch (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol question.svg ALT 1 is currently too long at 222 characters. Also, there is still a discussion on the talk page about merging. I suggest the discussion be closed before proceeding as this article might not exist if it is merged (I personally don't believe it should). FallingGravity (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: Merge discussion resolved; not merged. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 06:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I say this is ready to go. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 02:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Jujutsuan As one of the article creators, you aren't allowed to be the one who passes this nomination. Needs an independent reviewer to pass it. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer requested. FallingGravity (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol confirmed.svg Alt2 hook is fine; article meets all requirements. Good to go. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)