Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Wax"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(r)
Line 24: Line 24:
 
::* This is a stub, not a [[WP:GA]].  I agree it can use some work.  That's part of the purpose of DYK - to bring attention to new or newly revised article, if I remember correctly.  As to your assertion - I did not copy anyone's previous article but wrote from scratch instead.  Some technical wording is copied from Wax's CV, which may explain similarities.  I don't think terminology and official award titles are a copyvio.  Please fee free to improve the article and/or the hook. [[User:Mhym|Mhym]] ([[User talk:Mhym|talk]]) 07:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 
::* This is a stub, not a [[WP:GA]].  I agree it can use some work.  That's part of the purpose of DYK - to bring attention to new or newly revised article, if I remember correctly.  As to your assertion - I did not copy anyone's previous article but wrote from scratch instead.  Some technical wording is copied from Wax's CV, which may explain similarities.  I don't think terminology and official award titles are a copyvio.  Please fee free to improve the article and/or the hook. [[User:Mhym|Mhym]] ([[User talk:Mhym|talk]]) 07:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  
:::*Thanks. First, can an admin please make available the article that was hidden from view here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Amy_Wax&action=edit&redlink=1 ? It has important information that should be in this article, for one thing. Its was created before this draft, its  deletion followed shortly (by '''mere hours''') the submission of this article, and its deletion is not un-controversial (which was the basis for its deletion).  
+
:::*Thanks. First, can an admin please make available the article that was hidden from view here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Amy_Wax&action=edit&redlink=1 ? It has important information that should be in this article, for one thing. Its was created before this draft, its  deletion followed shortly (by '''mere hours''') the submission of this article, and its deletion is not un-controversial (which was the asserted basis for its deletion).  
  
:::Second, a stub is fine. But for an article to appear at DYK on the main page, I think we should be careful to have footnotes for every assertion. The deleted draft had them - for the same information where the footnotes are missing here.
+
:::Second, I agree a stub is fine. But for an article to appear at DYK on the main page, I think we should be careful to have footnotes for every assertion. The deleted draft had them - for the same information where the footnotes are missing here. One of the reasons I have asked for the deleted draft page to be restored.
  
:::The prior version also has fixes to the grammatical problems of missing words that I noted. For the main page, I do not think we want such errors.
+
:::The prior version also has fixes to the grammatical problems of missing words that I noted we have in this second version. For the main page, I do not think we want such errors.
  
:::Also, you did not say anything about the problem I pointed out with the controversy paragraph you drafted.  It presents only one side. I think for the main page in particular, we would want to comply with [[wp:npov]]. This does not.  To do that we would have to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic. We would also switchout "claimed" for "said", as wp:npov suggest.[[Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E010:1100:CD84:F876:2C42:BC9E|2604:2000:E010:1100:CD84:F876:2C42:BC9E]] ([[User talk:2604:2000:E010:1100:CD84:F876:2C42:BC9E|talk]]) 22:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
+
:::Also, you did not say anything about the problem I pointed out with the controversy paragraph you drafted.  It presents only one side. I think for the main page in particular, we would want to comply with [[wp:npov]]. This does not.  To do that we would have to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic. We would also switch out "claimed" for "said", as wp:npov suggests.[[Special:Contributions/2604:2000:E010:1100:CD84:F876:2C42:BC9E|2604:2000:E010:1100:CD84:F876:2C42:BC9E]] ([[User talk:2604:2000:E010:1100:CD84:F876:2C42:BC9E|talk]]) 22:08, 9 April 2019 (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 22:11, 9 April 2019

Amy Wax

Created by Mhym (talk). Self-nominated at 02:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC).

  • Symbol possible vote.svg Comment. There was an earlier (first paragraphs nearly identical, except for some deletions by the nom in this second one) version of this page at AFC by an editor other than the nom here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Amy_Wax&action=edit&redlink=1 In some ways that earlier version was better -- it had footnotes for every assertion in the first few paragraphs, while in this version nom took them out. This version also needs grammar cleanup - "the" and "a" and similar words were dropped from the first version, where needed. Also, some facts, like that the subject attended Harvard Law School, were deleted for some reason. I think if the first version is made viewable and this one is improved along these lines this will be better for approval for this category. Also, when in this version nom writes "Amy Wax has been called "notorious..", maybe it would be an improvement to say by whom. Also, it may be a good idea to have the controversy paragraph, which presents only one side, instead comply with wp:npov (representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic; and switching out "claimed" for "said"; etc.).2604:2000:E010:1100:A066:E3A3:DD44:3FFC (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a stub, not a WP:GA. I agree it can use some work. That's part of the purpose of DYK - to bring attention to new or newly revised article, if I remember correctly. As to your assertion - I did not copy anyone's previous article but wrote from scratch instead. Some technical wording is copied from Wax's CV, which may explain similarities. I don't think terminology and official award titles are a copyvio. Please fee free to improve the article and/or the hook. Mhym (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. First, can an admin please make available the article that was hidden from view here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Amy_Wax&action=edit&redlink=1 ? It has important information that should be in this article, for one thing. Its was created before this draft, its deletion followed shortly (by mere hours) the submission of this article, and its deletion is not un-controversial (which was the asserted basis for its deletion).
Second, I agree a stub is fine. But for an article to appear at DYK on the main page, I think we should be careful to have footnotes for every assertion. The deleted draft had them - for the same information where the footnotes are missing here. One of the reasons I have asked for the deleted draft page to be restored.
The prior version also has fixes to the grammatical problems of missing words that I noted we have in this second version. For the main page, I do not think we want such errors.
Also, you did not say anything about the problem I pointed out with the controversy paragraph you drafted. It presents only one side. I think for the main page in particular, we would want to comply with wp:npov. This does not. To do that we would have to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic. We would also switch out "claimed" for "said", as wp:npov suggests.2604:2000:E010:1100:CD84:F876:2C42:BC9E (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)