Template:Did you know nominations/Nobel Prize effect

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) 05:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Nobel Prize effect[edit]

(
)

Created by Anachronist (talk). Self-nominated at 22:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC).

  • Hmmm, moved to mainspace from draft on 26 Jan (prose portion around 500 characters excluding block quotes) and expanded to about 1300 characters (excluding block quotes) on 6 Feb. Based on this, I have to say it is ineligible for now since it's not new enough and not long enough. Manelolo (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@Manelolo: Um, no, that isn't how it happened. If you look at my talk page User talk:Anachronist#Moved to Draft, you'll see that someone else (not me) unilaterally moved it from my userspace to draft on 1/26 and I moved it back to my user space immediately (mistakenly moving it to main space for less than 1 minute). It had been languishing in my userspace since 2014. Then I spent several days communicating with the publisher of one of the sources to get the citation right (because Google Books wasn't citing it properly), before moving it to main space on February 6. The article has resided in main space less than 1 day total so far. Here's the timeline from the move logs:
I hope that clears things up. It was in main space for less than 1 minute on 26 Feb. As for the length, I expanded it a bit more today and it now passes DYKcheck. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@Anachronist: Ha, ok, interesting turns of events, never seen that before! Prose length now 1600, new enough (de facto move date to mainspace on 6 Feb), within policy. Hooks and QPQ ok. I favour ALT0 as the more interesting one. Maybe ALT1 might be more catchy like this: "... that Nobel laureates often are expected to be experts even outside their field of work?" Manelolo (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I also favor ALT0 (which is why I put it first), but I like your ALT1 much better than mine, so I now prefer either one equally. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Discussion

@Anachronist:@Manelolo:

I took a look at the article and notice that it is basically a series of 3 observations strung together. The article barely passes 1500 characters, and most of that is the introduction to the quotes. The main sources for the subject are a 2008 paper and a response to that paper. I'm wondering if this is WP:SYNTH or syllogism rather than an encyclopedic subject? Yoninah (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
A valid observation. IMHO it's not WP:SYNTH. It's a subcategory of Winner and loser effects and the different effects of the Nobel peace prize specifically are documented outside of the article's sources even by a quick search (The Winner Effect: How Power Affects Your Brain, pp. 141-143; How your life changes when you win a Nobel prize; Too big to fault? Effects of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize on Norwegian exports to China and foreign policy). One ponders if it needs its own article per WP:GNG or if it could be within Winner and loser effects.
That being said, the article would benefit from more work. I passed it to encourage article building and since it met the technicalities. I'll let others weigh in now. Manelolo (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Manelolo: if you felt the article didn't meet GNG or could be merged, and additionally that "the article would benefit from more work", you shouldn't have passed it. As much as we try to encourage new editors, we don't encourage substandard work on the main page. I'm returning it to the noms page. Yoninah (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: The Nobel Prize effect has nothing to do with winner and loser effects; I have no idea why that was even suggested. That article is about a biological phenomenon, and doesn't even mention human social interactions. The Nobel Prize effect is a social phenomenon that has had reliable source coverage. It wouldn't be appropriate to merge the two subjects. In my view, there are sufficient sources about the Nobel Prize effect to warrant a stand-alone article, which is why I wrote it (I had come across the term repeatedly while browsing one day, so I decided to dig further and write an article about it). Initially the information I was seeing (many trivial mentions which I didn't bother to cite) weren't about the Peace Prize, but then I came across those sources about the Peace Prize and because they went into such depth, I felt it would violate WP:UNDUE to leave them out.

I also point out that all DYK articles "could benefit from more work." That's kind of the point, isn't it? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Anachronist: I agree with you that this is not a candidate for merger to winner and loser effects. But the sourcing does need to be improved. If you do have additional sources, please add them to show significance. Yoninah (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Huh. Well, I spent a whole week going back and forth with the publisher of one source before they found the actual citation for me (that's the Google Books source, and Google had it wrong). I thought the sources in there give pretty extensive coverage already, which is why I submitted this to DYK. I can look for more, but at the moment I'm in a crunch at work before leaving to settle some funeral affairs, so it may be a while before I can do more research. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Anachronist:, well, if you're willing to find more sources that specifically talk about this phenomenon, we can certainly wait for a few weeks. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Anachronist, it's been another five weeks. If you think you can improve the sourcing per Yoninah in the next week, two at the outside, then we're happy to leave it open a little while longer. If not, it's probably time to call it a day. Please let us know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the reminder. I had found some additional sources, and just now added them, with more prose. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Anachronist: thank you for the additions. I think it would help if you expand the lead to summarize the various "effects" described in the article. Yoninah (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: The lead already mentions all four subsections. I had reworded it in my previous edits. What else does it need? ~Anachronist (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I just don't think it's clear enough. I would write it in shorter sentences, like: The Nobel Prize effect is an observation about the adverse effects of winning the Nobel Prize on laureates and their careers. These effects include ... Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Reworded. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The lead reads nicely and all the examples are well sourced. No close paraphrasing seen in new additions. This nomination is ready to go with the original hook. Yoninah (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Nobel_Prize_effect&oldid=836849796"