Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/ThePsychoExWife.com"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Orlady
(partial review: I have some policy concerns about NPOV and original research)
Line 28: Line 28:
 
:*[[File:Symbol redirect vote 4.svg|16px]] EagerToddler, that's not a DYK rule; it's just an artifact of the setup of Wikipedia. The fact is that the interface does not allow non-autoconfirmed users to create new template pages, so they are physically prevented from submitting DYK noms according to the normal procedure. There never has been an intent to block them from participating in DYK. Ideally, an IP user like this one would register and become autoconfirmed. Failing that, they are encouraged to post their proposals for noms (including proposed hooks, image file names, etc.) at [[WT:DYK]] and request that someone else create the nom on their behalf. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 
:*[[File:Symbol redirect vote 4.svg|16px]] EagerToddler, that's not a DYK rule; it's just an artifact of the setup of Wikipedia. The fact is that the interface does not allow non-autoconfirmed users to create new template pages, so they are physically prevented from submitting DYK noms according to the normal procedure. There never has been an intent to block them from participating in DYK. Ideally, an IP user like this one would register and become autoconfirmed. Failing that, they are encouraged to post their proposals for noms (including proposed hooks, image file names, etc.) at [[WT:DYK]] and request that someone else create the nom on their behalf. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 
::* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] I have not done a complete review yet, but I find that the article has some policy issues: [[WP:NPOV|non-neutral POV]] and [[WP:OR|original research]]. Its content and tone are skewed to the perspective of the website owners, in opposition to the "ex-wife". (For example, I see adoption of the website's perspective in statements like {{tq|post ... clarified that, despite the website's provocative name, ThePsychoExWife.com was intended for both divorced men and women}} and {{tq|Weaver-Ostinato explained, the blog voiced genuine concerns}}, particularly in the use of words like "clarified" and "explained" and "genuine".) The original research is in the form of statements like {{tq|Morelli's case had nearly universal support from First Amendment legal experts}} and {{tq|The response from the blogosphere was mixed and understandably divided along gender lines}}, which seem to represent a Wikipedia contributor's evaluations -- not someone else's published evaluations. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 18:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 
::* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] I have not done a complete review yet, but I find that the article has some policy issues: [[WP:NPOV|non-neutral POV]] and [[WP:OR|original research]]. Its content and tone are skewed to the perspective of the website owners, in opposition to the "ex-wife". (For example, I see adoption of the website's perspective in statements like {{tq|post ... clarified that, despite the website's provocative name, ThePsychoExWife.com was intended for both divorced men and women}} and {{tq|Weaver-Ostinato explained, the blog voiced genuine concerns}}, particularly in the use of words like "clarified" and "explained" and "genuine".) The original research is in the form of statements like {{tq|Morelli's case had nearly universal support from First Amendment legal experts}} and {{tq|The response from the blogosphere was mixed and understandably divided along gender lines}}, which seem to represent a Wikipedia contributor's evaluations -- not someone else's published evaluations. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 18:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 +
 +
*Thanks for checking over the article. I tried to keep it in as neutral a tone as possible but I don't have a problem if certain statements need to be reworded. [[Special:Contributions/72.74.217.22|72.74.217.22]] ([[User talk:72.74.217.22|talk]]) 15:24, 22 March 2014 (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 15:24, 22 March 2014

ThePsychoExWife.com

Created/expanded by 72.74.207.196 (talk). Nominated by 72.74.206.122 (talk) at 01:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg Article has an orphan tagged that needs to be addressed by linking from other articles within the encyclopedia and then removed. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Is that really necessary for a DYK nomination? 72.74.214.237 (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've deorphaned the article. Now it's time for a review. --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg - As an aside: the hook was nominated and created by an IP. DYK requires autoconfirmed status to nominate articles to DYK. EagerToddler39 (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote 4.svg EagerToddler, that's not a DYK rule; it's just an artifact of the setup of Wikipedia. The fact is that the interface does not allow non-autoconfirmed users to create new template pages, so they are physically prevented from submitting DYK noms according to the normal procedure. There never has been an intent to block them from participating in DYK. Ideally, an IP user like this one would register and become autoconfirmed. Failing that, they are encouraged to post their proposals for noms (including proposed hooks, image file names, etc.) at WT:DYK and request that someone else create the nom on their behalf. --Orlady (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg I have not done a complete review yet, but I find that the article has some policy issues: non-neutral POV and original research. Its content and tone are skewed to the perspective of the website owners, in opposition to the "ex-wife". (For example, I see adoption of the website's perspective in statements like Template:Tq and Template:Tq, particularly in the use of words like "clarified" and "explained" and "genuine".) The original research is in the form of statements like Template:Tq and Template:Tq, which seem to represent a Wikipedia contributor's evaluations -- not someone else's published evaluations. --Orlady (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking over the article. I tried to keep it in as neutral a tone as possible but I don't have a problem if certain statements need to be reworded. 72.74.217.22 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)