Template:Did you know nominations/The Human Abstract (poem)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Allen3 talk 13:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

The Human Abstract (poem)[edit]

The elderly male mythological being Urizen from Blake's mythology

  • Comment: May want to make the image slightly larger then the standard to see the full detail.

Created/expanded by Dmitrismirnov (talk). Nominated by Sadads (talk) at 00:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC).

  • Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Ritz-Carlton Grand Cayman, Sadads (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Article is new enough and long enough. However, it's not adequately supported by footnotes to sources -- some passages in the article don't have footnotes. More significantly, the hook fact doesn't seem to be explicitly presented in the article. A hook fact needs to be in the article and it needs to be supported by citations to sources. --Orlady (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Referencing issues still not addressed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry it took so long for me to chime in here. I am not the original author, and don't have the time to address sourcing right now (it might have a few other problems as well). Thanks for monitoring @Crisco 1492:, Sadads (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The article is fine, but the hook is too unintereseting for a DYK.

Srolanh (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

OK so the article is OK but the hook needs replacing. Here there is new hook which can be ticked from the article on an AGF basis. I also suggest that the new picture is a bit more eye catching Victuallers (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Urizen with his net

  • Orlady's point about the article not being "adequately supported by footnotes to sources" remains true: no new inline source citations have been added, and she's quite correct in this, as was easily apparent when I skimmed the article. As the article still has these sourcing issues after over three weeks and the nominator will not be addressing them, I'm reiterating Crisco 1492's X. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)