Template:Did you know nominations/John Stewart (tenor)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
John Stewart (tenor)
[edit]- ... that John Stewart, a regular tenor with the New York City Opera and then the Frankfurt Opera, recorded the part of Oronte in Handel's Alcina opposite Cristina Deutekom in Carnegie Hall in 1974?
Created/expanded by 4meter4 (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 10:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hook: AGF on hook reference behind paywall. Short enough, somewhat interesting.
- Article: Needs work with referencing; not thorough enough, and should have accessdates. New enough and long enough. Paraphrasing looks okay; AGF on paywall and foreign sources.
- Summary:
Needs work on referencing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I completely disagree that the referencing is not thorough enough. As far as I can tell, the article goes well beyond DYK's criteria for referencing. Further, access dates are not a DYK criteria.4meter4 (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- The last paragraph is completely unreferenced, and a goodly portion of the first paragraph of the biography. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding access dates, they are a key part of verifiability. The current referencing leaves much to be desired (a step above bare urls), and adding at the very least access dates will assist greatly in ensuring that the article stays verifiable. Several reviewers, including myself, are fairly strict on reference formatting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I again disagree that access dates are necessary in all cases. Since The New York Times (the source most often used) is also a print publication readily available in most public libraries in back copies in microfiche or other format, there is absolutely no way that a curious fact checker would have an issue finding the material in print. Since the name of the article, author, work, and date are clearly given, I really don't think there is a problem here. Additionally, nyt is a stable website that is not likely to change its urls. As to the info in the uncited paragraphs, I got the content from university websites where Stewart is/was either employed or was visiting as a guest lecturer. Those bios are not independent of the subject given that they were likely penned by the subject. I therfore didn't want to include them on purpose, but felt that the content was important to include anyway. That info could not be found elsewhere in independent sources. Frankly, I find the demands made here somewhat ridiculous. The article bas 24 references cited in a clear and understandable format. There are a total of 26 inline citations. DYK is not GA or FA. Stop creating unecessary hoops based on your own personal criteria and not in DYK policy.4meter4 (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- One reference per paragraph is a DYK guideline, see WP:DYKSG. I'd think that for basic information like whom he's married to, the pages could pass WP:SPS. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- We know the rule. The article has 6 pars and 24 citations. The last par is uncited because it is precise, for example the first source just says "Frankfurt ... for more than ten years". Unfortunately he was part of the Frankfurt ensemble before the time of Internet, or he would appear with the company. Should precision be given up for DYK rule's sake? Two pars could be arranged as one. Should clarity be given up? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I again disagree that access dates are necessary in all cases. Since The New York Times (the source most often used) is also a print publication readily available in most public libraries in back copies in microfiche or other format, there is absolutely no way that a curious fact checker would have an issue finding the material in print. Since the name of the article, author, work, and date are clearly given, I really don't think there is a problem here. Additionally, nyt is a stable website that is not likely to change its urls. As to the info in the uncited paragraphs, I got the content from university websites where Stewart is/was either employed or was visiting as a guest lecturer. Those bios are not independent of the subject given that they were likely penned by the subject. I therfore didn't want to include them on purpose, but felt that the content was important to include anyway. That info could not be found elsewhere in independent sources. Frankly, I find the demands made here somewhat ridiculous. The article bas 24 references cited in a clear and understandable format. There are a total of 26 inline citations. DYK is not GA or FA. Stop creating unecessary hoops based on your own personal criteria and not in DYK policy.4meter4 (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Although I am not a fan of adding sources not independent of the subject, I have done so to appease the reviewer. I have also added a missing citation (I had forgotten to place it earlier) to the second half of the first paragraph; which should aleve concerns there. As far as I can tell, the issues raised have been addressed.4meter4 (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
AGF on sources behind paywall Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
