Template:Did you know nominations/Film capacitor

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: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Referencing issues

Film capacitor[edit]

(

)

... that metallized film capacitors have a "self-healing" property which allows them to automatically clear away internal short-circuit faults, and to resume normal operation within fractions of a second?

Reviewed: Leydig cell hypoplasia (despite being exempt from the requirement)
Comment: Other images available in article. Also, since this is quite a large article, the hook comes from this section.

Created/expanded by Elcap (talk), Reify-tech (talk). Nominated by Fuhghettaboutit (talk) at 23:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the paragraphs in this lengthy article are not referenced. Maile66 (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Most" might be a bit hyperbolic. 34 out of 146 paragraphs are cited, or about 23%. Okay, I concede I'm splitting hairs but we aren't here about a nearly unsourced article but one that has 108 citations. The purpose of DYK is to feature new articles, not perfect articles. I see no requirement in DYK rules that articles under consideration must be entirely sourced, just that they use inline citations as their form of references, and that the hook be cited through an inline citation. If that is insufficient, there's little I can do: not my creation; the article's huge; not a subject area with which I am conversant.
I'm sure you're aware that, with the exception of all quotes and challenged or likely to be challenged material, verifiability does not require that everything be cited, only that content must be able to be cited ("verifiable not verified"). In a sense, I am playing devil's advocate here against myself. This is current practice but not what I believe current practice should be. I actually believe everything should be cited but until practice changes, I play with the cards I'm dealt.
There is a bigger picture here. Even if this can't be used—if the de facto practice at DYK is, indeed, to require at least one citation per paragraph—that needs to be said expressly in the rules. For that reason, I think I will post about this to the talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As an outside opinion, I think the fact that this article got rejected for DYK is disappointing. Looking at the article I don't see anything uncited that seems challengeable and this "1 cite per paragraph" approach seems to be more about bean counting instead of Verifiability. Heck, considering how short many of the paragraphs are, you could "merge" several of these uncited paragraph together with a cited paragraph above and below and viola! all paragraphs are "cited" even though the actual amount of citations and sourced material hasn't changed. Does that make any sense? Is Wikipedia or DYK any better served by rejecting quality articles like this on the basis of simple bean counting? Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 21:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on DYK's rules about sourcing, the why and the what. Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Sourcing_standards FYI. Maile66 (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

My initial look at this article was only on the lacking of inline citations. By DYK rules, that's all that was needed for rejection. However, the references section had been tagged for Bare URLS way back in March 2012 (three months before this was ever put up for nomination). There are over 30 bare urls as references. Many of those URLs go to a manufacturer site, perhaps to verify they sell the product.The creator of the article is working to correct the sourcing issues. Afterwards, this DYK needs a full review, and I think it would benefit by having a pair of fresh eyes look at it for the review. That is, I don't mind seeing someone else other than me have a go at this, and I think it would be helpful. Maile66 (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)