Template:Did you know nominations/Administrators (Wikipedia)
- The following discussion 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 — Maile (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Administrators (Wikipedia)
[edit]- ... that the online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been appointing new administrators much more slowly in recent years, with only nine appointed in the first half of 2012?
- Reviewed: Suding & Soeken building, Bremen
Created by Jinkinson (talk). Self nominated at 16:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC).
Doing... Soham 17:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Size, hook source and length, creation all check out but you have 6 DYKs, QPQ required. Soham 07:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have nominated this article for deletion, so it probably would be a good idea to hold off on this. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- DYK won't be promoted or this review be continued until the AfD is resolved. Soham 04:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- AfD looks like snowy keep. The article is a bit messy (missing some key literature), but that's not an issue for a DYK. I'd tick it as pass by second reviewer but we are still waiting for QPQ I guess? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely, by the looks of it it'll most probably be kept, then the review will continue but then again QPQ is
requiredmandatory. Soham 15:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely, by the looks of it it'll most probably be kept, then the review will continue but then again QPQ is
- Yes, sure. I think I will review the nomination for Suding & Soeken building, Bremen. Jinkinson talk to me 17:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please reply once the Afd is closed and the QPQ is done.
Soham 17:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- The AfD has been withdrawn. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- And I have done the QPQ (though it is the first time I have done so, so I may have forgotten to do something). Jinkinson talk to me 02:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- You should have added it to the above, nevermind I have added it for you. The afd has been withdrawn, QPQ is provided hook is cited. All GTG
Soham 06:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- You should have added it to the above, nevermind I have added it for you. The afd has been withdrawn, QPQ is provided hook is cited. All GTG
- And I have done the QPQ (though it is the first time I have done so, so I may have forgotten to do something). Jinkinson talk to me 02:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
- The AfD has been withdrawn. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The key number—nine admins in the first half of 2012—is sourced to FN5 and FN6, but the only one that uses the number nine is the Daily Mail source written by Wrenn, the second in FN6. While it says the chart comes from Wikipedia itself, when you look at the 2012 column, while the total may be listed as 9, the actual total of the six months is 10: two months of 3 and four of 1 equals 10. Given the problematic inconsistencies in the source, I don't see how "nine" can safely be used in the hook when the data source shows ten. Since this is a hook about Wikipedia, we need to be extra careful that it's accurate, and as it stands something is clearly incorrect. (Can someone explain why the third FN6 source, the Popkin, is included, as all it does is rehash the Meyer article sourced in FN5?) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could change the second half of the hook to something like "with only two appointed in May and June of 2012 compared with ten in May and June 2011?" Because this is clearly verifiable both in FN7 and by looking at the chart in the Daily Mail article. Jinkinson talk to me 20:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- I see a fairly easy fix here. Note that the article currently doesn't say that only 9 were appointed, it tells about news media reports that said that. Furthermore, only one of the 4 sources cited included the number 9. Revise the hook to focus on what was reported, rather than what the reality is:
- ALT1: ... that in July 2012 news media reported that the online encyclopedia Wikipedia had been appointing new administrators much more slowly in recent years?
- I believe that the proposed trimmed-back hook is fully supported by the article and sources, so I'm ticking this one, but YMMV. --Orlady (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- I see a fairly easy fix here. Note that the article currently doesn't say that only 9 were appointed, it tells about news media reports that said that. Furthermore, only one of the 4 sources cited included the number 9. Revise the hook to focus on what was reported, rather than what the reality is: