Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Allen Fox
< Template:Did you know nominations
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Revision as of 20:34, 27 December 2016 by imported>J Milburn (Reply)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Michael Allen Fox
- ...
that the philosopher Michael Allen Fox became highly critical of animal testing soon after the publication of his The Case for Animal Experimentation, and went on to write critiques of animal testing and a book in support of vegetarianism?
Created by J Milburn (talk). Self-nominated at 23:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC).
-
- Yes, sorry. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that the philosopher Michael Fox became highly critical of animal testing following the publication of his The Case for Animal Experimentation, later writing a book in support of vegetarianism?
- Reviewed/reviewing: Alice Brock. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Full review needed now that hook is set. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- Review
- Article is long enough (4493 characters) and new enough, moved from user space on November 19 and nominated the same day.
- Article is stable, neutral, and sufficiently referenced. The referencing would be better if it was improved - books have no isbns, some journal refs lack pages, link in 19 doesn't get to the article (though the whole issue is available on PDF at https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/pir/article/download/5615/2311), no doi for ref 4 (it is 10.15368/bts.1987v3n2.1), no doi for ref 9 (it is 10.1016/0968-0004(86)90168-4) and the title is truncated, etc. Such issues are not reason to hold up the nomination as there is sufficient to find the sources and they are not bare urls, but I think the referencing should be addressed.
- The elements in the hook are included in the article, supported by refs 4, 13, and 14. ALT1 is under 200 characters and is interesting.
- QPQ review of Alice Brock does not address every criterion - no mention of copyvio check, for example, though my own check shows no problem in this regard. The Brock article was on the main page without any problems, as far as I am aware, though TRM noted several places where citations were needed, one an unreferenced stand-alone sentence which counts as an unreferenced paragraph under DYK rules. Two of these were addressed before the article went to the main page, two are still in the article, so technically the Brock hook should have been pulled. I'll accept this QPQ credit but ask that future reviews make mention of the five main criteria and consider all the rules.
- Copyvio is not an issue, the phrases Earwig's tool highlights are full titles of publications which cannot be paraphrased. No issues with paraphrasing noted. Direct quotations are in sources but not referenced at each occurrence, instead appearing at the end of later sentences where the reference applies to all. This is not a practice I like to see with direct quotations, but DYK rules do not forbid it unless the quotation is in the hook, in which case an immediate citation is required.
ALT1 approved, with the I hope the nominator / editor (Template:U) will consider the referencing improvements and QPQ review issues raised here. EdChem (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I have added the DOIs, but I am not a fan of ISBNs in references; it's not something often seen anywhere but Wikipedia. Noted concerning the Brock check, but I would like to say that a failure to mention copyvios does not equate to a failure to look for them; as you say, there was no problem with copyvio, and I did spend some time with the article, as my edits will show. I do not understand your "unreferenced paragraph" claim, as this seems to be nothing to do with the DYK eligibility criteria. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)