- 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 Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
PJ and Thomas
- ... that PJ and Thomas were the first gay couple to host an HGTV show? Source: "As the first gay couple to host a show on HGTV, PJ and Thomas are doing a lot more than renovating homes: they're winning our hearts with their adorably affectionate relationship." "Meet the Couple Hosting HGTV's Down to the Studs — Because That's What They Are", PopSugar; July 15, 2017
Moved to mainspace by Bi-on-ic (talk). Nominated by Daniel Case (talk) at 05:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC).
Article is new enough (from draftspace), long enough, and the hook is sourced. QPQ also checks out. Grk1011 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case and Grk1011:
Self-reverting promotion; I don't think PopSugar is a reliable source, and it looks like a lot of the article is based on mid-range queer magazines and websites – are there more reliable publications available? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: I only nominated this article. You will have to ask the nominator, @Bi-on-ic:, about this since he put it together. (And I would add that not being familiar with a publication does not mean it doesn't meet our reliability standards ... there are plenty of local newspapers we don't have articles about that we have accepted as sources because they demonstrate editorial oversight; conversely, while no one would question the notability of TMZ or The Daily Mail we avoid using them as sources). Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: I'd argue that you, as the nominator, accept the primary responsibility for shepherding this to the finish line – the creator didn't ask for the extra work of making this meet DYK criteria. By all means, let's see what Bi-on-ic can tell us, but I'm not sure that a drive-by nomination is appropriate if it creates more work for the author. by mid-range, i meant mid-range in reliability, not notability ;) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: I moved the article to mainspace from AfC at his request. PopSugar seems to have been used as a source in a number of articles, which of course does not equal reliability. Perhaps this issue is better decided at RS/N than in a DYK nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: I'd argue that you, as the nominator, accept the primary responsibility for shepherding this to the finish line – the creator didn't ask for the extra work of making this meet DYK criteria. By all means, let's see what Bi-on-ic can tell us, but I'm not sure that a drive-by nomination is appropriate if it creates more work for the author. by mid-range, i meant mid-range in reliability, not notability ;) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: I only nominated this article. You will have to ask the nominator, @Bi-on-ic:, about this since he put it together. (And I would add that not being familiar with a publication does not mean it doesn't meet our reliability standards ... there are plenty of local newspapers we don't have articles about that we have accepted as sources because they demonstrate editorial oversight; conversely, while no one would question the notability of TMZ or The Daily Mail we avoid using them as sources). Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case and Grk1011:
- At the former discussion, the one response was "limited reliability for non-BLP, entertainment-related subjects" since apparently it does have a gatekeeping process.
Now, the question is: do we consider the hook fact BLP or not? I'm (understandably at this point) going to take the latter position since the hook fact isn't that they're gay; that's well-established by the article and they have said so more than once. I consider the hook fact "entertainment-related" since it's that they're the first gay couple to host a show on this particular network. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- This discussion is now moot. I found an article in Country Living, a Hearst magazine whose reliability as a source is beyond doubt, saying the same thing, so we'll use it instead. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- At the former discussion, the one response was "limited reliability for non-BLP, entertainment-related subjects" since apparently it does have a gatekeeping process.
Greetings. PopSugar is not the only reference source for the first gay couple hosting statement. It is mentioned in multiple sources cited throughout the article.
In fact, this was the main part of the program's advertising, the fact that it was the network's first-ever show with gay hosts. It was heavily promoted by HGTV for that very reason. Also, one of the reasons behind the Out magazine interview, which is not only a credible source but also has the highest circulation of any LGBTQ publication in the US.
And the claim that all citations are 'queer magazines & websites' is not true. For instance, the UNHCR article about their activism or Cleveland Daily Banner about their property development projects. Bionic (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Bionic! Daniel Case did already resource the hook, so that's fine; and I know that not all of the citations are queer magazines and websites (although the Chattanooga Times Free Press is certainly queer in the other sense), but it's enough sources in that reliable-ish area that it starts to feel shaky. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron I disagree. I don't see how queer websites can't be used to cite queer-related topics. It seems no different than citing a book to a book magazine or a film to a film journal. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- These are more, shall we say, tvtropes.com than they are The A.V. Club. Yes, they both attempt the same topic, but not every queer website is The Advocate. mensvows.com, for example, is essentially a multi-person blog, and I see little evidence of strong editorial oversight. Thegailygrind.com likewise seems quite clickbaity. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem like the best idea to hold the nomination up without a wider discussion about the sources. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron I will try replacing the sources that you find to be problematic within the next couple days, but I'm not sure what all of them are. SL93 (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- These are more, shall we say, tvtropes.com than they are The A.V. Club. Yes, they both attempt the same topic, but not every queer website is The Advocate. mensvows.com, for example, is essentially a multi-person blog, and I see little evidence of strong editorial oversight. Thegailygrind.com likewise seems quite clickbaity. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron I disagree. I don't see how queer websites can't be used to cite queer-related topics. It seems no different than citing a book to a book magazine or a film to a film journal. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Just ticking this for the benefit of prep builders. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)- @Bi-on-ic and Daniel Case: Putting this on the clock and pinging one last time: I will close this in 7 days if the sourcing issue is not addressed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Sammi Brie: I have removed some of the questionable sources (i.e., the redlinks). Is that enough? Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: Yes. Letting the rest of the original review stand. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: There's still a "clarification needed" tag
from 2020that needs to be resolved. Can you do this so the nomination can move forward? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)- I looked at the source that was verifying the information for the clarification needed tag, and could not find the information the tag wanted clarified, so I removed the text. Another editor can add it back in if another source is used to verify it. Readding tick. Z1720 (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Daniel Case: There's still a "clarification needed" tag
- @Daniel Case:
- @Sammi Brie: I have removed some of the questionable sources (i.e., the redlinks). Is that enough? Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)