Template:Did you know nominations/The 34th Rule
- 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 Alex ShihTalk 16:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The 34th Rule
[edit]- ... that the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine novel The 34th Rule was intended to be an allegory for the Japanese American internment during the Second World War?
- Reviewed: Lau Church
Created by Miyagawa (talk). Self nominated at 08:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC).
Sources still accessible, hook interesting, and meets 1,500-character minimum. Each of two details is repeated twice: once in lede and in development section. However, that is not a big deal, especially since Featured and Good Articles summarize info in ledes, and the article could meet minimum without repeated detail in lede. Plot hopefully accurate, although plot expansion should be done if nominated as a Good Article Candidate. --George Ho (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
The fourth source, a Tom Holt review from TV Zone, isn't sourced from TV Zone at all but from Keith DeCandido's review brag page. Since Keith has a COI here, his page cannot be considered a reliable source, and it isn't valid to cite such a page as if it came from TV Zone. Either locate the original review and cite it directly, or remove it from the article (which would mean deleting the Reception section), but this DYK cannot run until this has been fixed. Also, the "allegory" sentence of the article's Development history section needs its own source citation, as it's supporting a fact in the DYK hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed the url from the citation - I think you might have your authors mixed up. DeCandido isn't the author of this book - he wrote a different Ferengi novel called Ferenginar. I consider DeCandido reliable - he's published a fair number of books, both Star Trek related and I've seen his articles on a variety of science fiction subjects. I don't think he'd misrepresent the quote as effectively it's saying that George's The 35th Rule is better than his own book. I've seen the quote mentioned on a couple of other sources but I consider DeCandido to be a reliable source - I've used his episode reviews in going on 25 articles or so. Miyagawa (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- No mixup: Keith wrote a different Ferengi novel or novella, and the quote is from a review of Keith's work, but the quote was still on his brag page. Yes, it's saying this other book is even better, but you don't know the full context of the review (which is of a pair of short novels published together in a single volume), whether Keith typoed the issue number, and so on. You're citing a source you've never actually seen, which is not valid. (See WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.) Given that this is not from the original magazine website, or taken from a printed version of the magazine (if it even has one), I think it needs to be viewed with caution, and it ultimately isn't a COI-free source, so it can't be considered sufficiently reliable for this use. (Those other sources: might they have copied Keith's version? If so, they're equally problematic.) I'm sure Keith, as a professional writer and reviewer, is an appropriately reliable source for professionally published episode reviews. That does not automatically carry over into all other areas. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed the reception section as I haven't directly seen the source. I did manage the confirm that it was the correct edition as the magazine (despite it being defunct for several years) has a listing here but I can't find anything reliable that is independent for the actual quote. Miyagawa (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Problematic source and citation has been removed (and the material it was cited for); article is long enough, and has appropriate citations for the material that requires it. Thank you; this is approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)