Template:Did you know nominations/Thuy Trang

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Thuy Trang

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Hunter Kahn (talk). Self-nominated at 11:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC).

  • General eligibility:
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I am a little confused about eligibility of this nom. The DYK check says it was promoted to GA on 18 August 2019, however it has issues which in my opinion would normally disqualify it from GA status. For example:

  • (1) It uses Youtube citations; the KTTV memorial service link goes to a YouTube video (not allowed), and the other Youtube link is dead anyway (deleted video).
  • (2) The "tracheotomy tube" link does not make medical sense, because a tracheotomy is a hole through the front of the neck, but a tracheal tube goes down the throat through the mouth, so you need to make clear what you mean, or delete the link.
  • (3) The Lisa Breckenridge citation goes only to two WP pages, which is not allowed on its own for citations. You need a link to a transcription, or a citation to tell us where a transcription can be found.
  • (4) There are several examples of un-corrected English usage, such as "portrayed" instead of "portray", "set of show", "a female out of costume" and "go the filming."
  • (5) The passage "including Cyberstrike ... fruition." is copyvio (it would be OK with quotation marks together with its source).
  • (6) All three of the images in the article are unfree. Normally one is OK - but three unfree images in a GA?

So how can this be a GA article? If you can bring this whole article to GA status and get a third party to agree on its GA status here, then this DYK nom could go ahead. At the moment I could take the hook citations AGF for tne newspaper citations which are not online, so long as they are properly written out (article title, newspaper name, date, page). Your QPQ review is not complete, because the nom does not have a QPQ of its own yet. It would be worth making the effort of resolving the above problems, since this actress deserves notice in DYK. Storye book (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • This is a GA article because it was submitted for a GA review and was approved. You can see it is listed on Wikipedia:Good articles (though the bot hasn't added the green GA icon to the page yet). You can take it to WP:GAR if you disagree and feel its GA status should be revoked, I suppose. But in any event, I will attempt to address your concerns above...
    • (1) This article does not use any YouTube links as sources. It cites the the documentary Encyclopedia of Martial Arts: Hollywood Stars. Originally a portion of Kwan's interview from that documentary was available on YouTube and the link was included as a reference, but since as you say the link is dead, I've removed the link. But the documentary itself still stands as a valid source. As for the KTTV memorial service news report, that is a citation of the KTTV report, not a YouTube video. The citation does not include a YouTube link, and the YouTube video of the KTTV report was in the External Links section (not by me) but [1] I've since removed it in response to your concerns...
    • (2) I've changed the wording to "tracheal tube", which I believe addresses your concern and is still consistent with the cited source...
    • (3) The link to Lisa Breckenridge's Wikipedia page is not the link for the source; that's simply a wiklink attached to the name of the reporter in the citation. The source is the KTTV report itself, which was televised and is not available online. I don't have immediate access or a transcription right at the moment (I could probably get my hands on it again if necessary) but a broadcast news report is certainly a WP:reliable source, and it can be accepted in good faith...
    • (4) I fixed the errors you cited above and would be happy to fix any others identified...
    • (5) This is not a copyright violation. Everything in that passage comes from reliable sources, all of which are cited by footnotes, and none of the language has been directly copied from those passages. I believe what you are referring to as a possibly copyright violation is the fact that the Earwig's Copyvio Detector (which came back with an overall "violation unlikely" rating fo this article), noticed similar language between that passion and this this TVTropes page. But that TVTropes page is a wiki, and it appears THAT site lifted the language from the Wikipedia page, not vice versa. You can see from the TVTropes page's edit history that the language was added to that page on June 17, which was days after it had first been added to the Thuy Trang Wikipedia page (here is a version from June 24 for reference as proof of this).
    • (6)Each of these non-free images serve different and distinct educational purposes for the article (a publicity headshot, an image of young Trang and her family, and one illustrates her character on Power Rangers), the rationale of which is explained on each image pages. None of them were deemed inappropriate by the GAN review that this article passed.
  • If you have other issues you'd like addressed, I'm perfectly willing to do so, as I'm more than happy to see the article improved further. But the fact is this is a listed good article, so I believe it meets the timing criteria for this DYK nomination. — Hunter Kahn 17:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I reviewed the GA and I will will respond with my thoughts on things.
      • "It uses Youtube citations" - The YouTube links can be removed from the references with the references still being used.
      • "The "tracheotomy tube" - I didn't even think about having medical knowledge to review an article on an actress. I do see that it was replaced with a tracheal tube now.
      • "The Lisa Breckenridge citation goes only to two WP pages" - It's not like the Wikipedia articles themselves are being used to reference the article.
      • "There are several examples of un-corrected English usage" - Sorry for missing those, but there weren't many and they were just easily fixed by the DYK nominator.
      • "The passage "including Cyberstrike ... fruition." is copyvio (it would be OK with quotation marks together with its source)." - The sources are shown as being offline so I'm not sure where the copyvio comes from.
      • "All three of the images in the article are unfree. Normally one is OK - but three unfree images in a GA?" - I didn't see the big deal in a long article, but two can easily be removed.
      • It is extreme to have a new third party, especially when you only pointed out minor fixes. It is well written (now with only a few typos fixed which I do apologize for missing them, but there were barely any), it is all verified with reliable sources, it is broad in its coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated. To be fair, there is no rule anywhere which states that only one non-free image can be used. It does says "The article should comply with image use policy. Images are encouraged but not required. Any images used should be appropriate to the article, have captions and free licenses or valid fair use rationales." and "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio". SL93 (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@SL93. Thank you for your very useful reply about the GA. I was only asking for a third party report on the GA status, not for the DYK review (unless you wish to do so, of course). My main reason for making such a detailed review was that I wanted to make sure it wasn't going to get bounced back after promotion. So your comments will help to straighten a lot of that out. Thank you. My guess is that three non-free images may still cause a bounce-back, but the rest of the article is probably now OK. Storye book (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Hunter Kahn. Thank you for your explanations, and for your link to your corrections. That solves a lot of the problems. That said, I am guessing we may still get a bounce-back on the three non-free images, and on the fact that you've green-ticked your review when the nominator of the John Hiller article has not yet submitted their own QPQ. If you had mentioned that their QPQ was missing, and temporarily withheld your green tick, your review would have been OK. This is not about making your life difficult - after all you have done a good job with your Thuy Trang article. It's about getting the nom through to promotion safely. The situation has improved greatly, and I thank you both for your patience and help with this. My remaining hesitation is about the green tick you gave for QPQ, and the too-many non-free images (I would accept the one non-free image at the top). I really would like to be able to sign off this nom, because it's a deserving subject. Storye book (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I’m on my way home now and I can ask for clarification somewhere about non-feee images. Not just to help out Hunter Kahn, but also because it’s the only thing I’m not familiar with. SL93 (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Storye book, thanks for pointing out that I approved the Hiller DFK even though they had not submitted a QPQ; that was an oversight on my part. I've edited that DYK nom accordingly. And as for your most recent comments, I appreciate what you're saying and I understand you're just coming from the perspective of ultimately trying to improve the article. As for the non-free images (two that I added myself, one that was already on the page) I personally feel that they serve three distinct educational purposes for different aspects of the article, as per the fair use rationale explained in each, so I feel they are appropriate. If you still disagree, my suggestion would be that we continue this discussion on the article talk page or some other appropriate channel and solicit opinions from others to try to reach a WP:CONSENSUS. Personally, I don't believe this DYK is necessarily the right channel for that, and I believe the DYK can move forward even as that image conversation is happening elsewhere, because since I'm not putting forward any of the images for inclusion in the hook, I don't believe this is an issue that the DYK criteria requires to be resolved. But I welcome your thoughts on the next step from here... — Hunter Kahn 20:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Hunter Kahn. Thank you for resolving the QPQ issue. I have adjusted the reviewing-template above, in the light of that. That leaves only the unfree images issue. The problem we have here is that it's the newly-acquired GA status which qualifies the article for a DYK nom. This Thuy Trang article acquired that GA status while retaining a number of faults which you have since resolved. I think that that justified my initial questioning of the GA status, and it justifies me still being careful that there are no remaining issues. I'll check the article through again, and come back to you, hopefully tomorrow. Storye book (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Hunter Kahn. Update. (1) I have looked at the image licenses for the three images, and also at the WP rules for them, and I'm satisfied now that the images will not cause a problem with DYK. Thank you for your patience with this. (2) There are still a few language issues remaining: (a) The template at the top of the article asks us to refer to Thuy Trang as "Thuy" not "Trang," in consideration of her cultural background. However the entire article calls her Trang many times, and never Thuy (unless quoting). (b) "it the costume colors." (c) "archival footage ... were used (should be "was"). (d) There is a space between the refs after the phrase "after a fight scene." (3) I'll now check through the refs, which I had not done thoroughly before. Thank you again for your patience. You have worked hard on this article, so it's worth the extra effort. Storye book (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Update 2. I have checked through the refs for valid links. I have not checked them for citation-value; I am assuming that that has been done (besides, due to their large advert files, the website links are too slow to load up fully via the slow broadband in my village.) The links are all OK now, except for ref.22, Huffington Post. I can't get the link to work here in the UK - please check that it works in PA? I have no more queries besides the ones in these two updates, so we are close to sorting out this DYK now, I believe. Just one point: I have left the IMDb links in because I support using IMDb on WP on the grounds that it's often the only current source for certain public-domain informtion. However I should let you know that there are reviewers here who do not agree with its use on WP on the grounds that the public can contribute to content. Storye book (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The template about her name was on the article before I worked on it, and I honestly thought it was more intended for the reader to understand how she is informally addressed; I had checked WP:NCVIET for clarification on whether she should be referenced that way formally in the article itself and didn't see anything in the guideline, so I used "Trang". But if you are sure it should be the other way around because of that template, I have changed all references to Thuy. I've also fixed the grammatical errors you cited above, and I double checked the Huffington Post article you inquired about above and yes, it immediately loaded for me. — Hunter Kahn 13:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mandarax: @Metropolitan90: @Storye book: @Hunter Kahn: @SL93: I'm reopening this one, as there is an inaccuracy in the hook - it says the passengers thought she was ill (a particularly bizarre reason to throw her overboard) - while the article says they thought she was *dead*. This is otherwise a good hook, so please come up with alternative wording and we can re-promote. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't see the problem. The article says, "Thuy went long periods of time without eating and fell ill, with her mother having to force food down her throat while she was unconscious to keep her alive. At one point, the other passengers wrongly believed Thuy to be dead and wanted to throw her body overboard to make more room for the other refugees, but her mother prevented them from doing so." In other words, she became so (actually) ill that other passengers (inaccurately) thought she was dead and wanted to throw her overboard. The hook says, "Thuy Trang, who played the Yellow Ranger on Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, became so ill when she came to the U.S. on a cargo ship that other passengers wanted to throw her overboard". So I don't think the hook is inconsistent with the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: I really hope that I don't get in any trouble by adding an alt hook when I reviewed the GA, but...
  • "... that Thuy Trang, who played the Yellow Ranger on Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, became so ill when she came to the U.S. that other passengers wanted to throw her overboard because they thought she was dead? SL93 (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    That's 205 characters long, so might cause problems with those who police that sort of thing? Otherwise it looks quite good. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Amakuru: I would suggest removing part of it and saying,
      ALT2: "... that Thuy Trang, who was in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, became so ill when she came to the U.S. that other passengers wanted to throw her overboard because they thought she was dead?" Clicking on the article will reveal what Power Ranger she played. SL93 (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
      @SL93: sounds good to me. I don't think I'm involved in this, so assuming nobody says I'm ineligible, I'm approving that as ALT2 now. My daughter saw the hook over my shoulder and was amazed by it, so I think it satisfies the hookiness criterion very well!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
      Since I was pinged.... I think it's more interesting to identify her as a major character, rather than just saying she "was in" the show, which would apply even if she were just an extra. I think it would be better to replace "was in" with "starred in", or replace the whole clause with something like "who played the yellow Mighty Morphin Power Ranger". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
      • As the nominator, I don't particularly have a preference between the ALT2 that SL93 suggested for the new revision that Mandarax proposed. If we go with ALT2, I'd suggest it be reworded slightly to ... that Mighty Morphin Power Rangers star Thuy Trang became so ill when she came to the U.S. that other passengers wanted to throw her overboard because they thought she was dead? Just because it's slightly more succinct and flows better, imo. Though honestly, all I want at this point is for this DYK nomination to be finished. lol — Hunter Kahn 16:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thuy_Trang&oldid=1019642181"