Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>George Ho
(more issues)
imported>Wookian
Line 31: Line 31:
 
:::This reduction of stability appears to be due to different editors having differing opinions on what is considered NEU in regards to the subject.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 05:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 
:::This reduction of stability appears to be due to different editors having differing opinions on what is considered NEU in regards to the subject.--[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 05:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 
:::* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] I have tagged the "[[Jon Stewart]]" statement with credibility and neutrality issues, addressed by one editor. Also, this article also has neutrality issues, which I tagged, according to talk pages. This article is becoming not without major flaws, to be honest. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 04:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 
:::* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] I have tagged the "[[Jon Stewart]]" statement with credibility and neutrality issues, addressed by one editor. Also, this article also has neutrality issues, which I tagged, according to talk pages. This article is becoming not without major flaws, to be honest. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 04:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 
+
* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] The hook's phrasing itself isn't neutral in my opinion, because this article really exists because of a political controvery, not because Obama gave a speech in Roanoke. There's nothing wrong with the article existing, but the hook should not pull a bait and switch on the reader. Maybe that's an overly subtle objection, I dunno. Just doesn't seem encylopedic. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk:Wookian|talk]]) 16:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 16:13, 20 August 2012

2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech

Official portrait of President Obama

  • Comment: New article from user sandbox

Created/expanded by RightCowLeftCoast (talk). Self nom at 03:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Without diving into the article I'll start with the fact that there is nothing hooky about this. In addition, I don't feel it is appropriate to put the President in DYK at this point in the year. Let me bring this up at Wikipedia talk:Did you knowRyan Vesey 04:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Point of order: I don't think RightCowLeftCoast built this, did he? – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 04:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment, perhaps I should have named this article "You didn't build that".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It is common practice to refer to the president by his title. It is similar to talking about Queen Elizabeth, you don't say Elizabeth Mary. Ryan Vesey 21:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg This article is nominated as AFD. Let's wait for a week absolutely. --George Ho (talk) 08:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Besides AFD, this article becomes a subject to rapid editing changes within a few hours or less (or more?). Therefore, I don't know when editing will calm down. --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
This reduction of stability appears to be due to different editors having differing opinions on what is considered NEU in regards to the subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have tagged the "Jon Stewart" statement with credibility and neutrality issues, addressed by one editor. Also, this article also has neutrality issues, which I tagged, according to talk pages. This article is becoming not without major flaws, to be honest. --George Ho (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg The hook's phrasing itself isn't neutral in my opinion, because this article really exists because of a political controvery, not because Obama gave a speech in Roanoke. There's nothing wrong with the article existing, but the hook should not pull a bait and switch on the reader. Maybe that's an overly subtle objection, I dunno. Just doesn't seem encylopedic. Wookian (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)