Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:19, 31 October 2019

Links

• today's or tomorrow's Main page
• today's or tomorrow's Featured article
• In the news
• today's or tomorrow's On this day
• current or next Did you know...
• today's or tomorrow's Featured picture
• last or next Featured list
• Glory glory...!

Sub-links

• MOS:ORDER

How to check a DYK candidate

Basic instructions that many of our admins fail to follow when promoting a DYK queue on its way to the main page.

1. Check the hook is written in grammatically correct English and matches words and ENGVAR used in the article.
2. Check the article is okay, that's a multi-step process:
   1. Check that there are no unreferenced claims in general, i.e. look for paras or sentences without refs.
   2. Check that the article is written in grammatically correct English (spot check, but especially around the hook region).
   3. Check that the hook is real.
   4. Check that the reference verifying the hook is live.
   5. (Check for MOS – I do this because I can, I'm good at it and I want the stuff on the main page to be decent, which it often isn't – this is optional...!)
   6. Check for basic DYK fails (bare URLs, stub templates, maintenance tags by the way]).

Discussion

TRM, I don't think that's fair. I think most admins do follow this unless they're pressed for time, and most probably do a lot more. Right now there are exactly five admins who move preps to queues. It's not enough. And the actual instructions call for a lot more -- they call for checking the article for verifiability, for instance. Checking eight articles a day for verifiability could be a full time job. --valereee (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

If the current admins cannot keep up with the demand and no new admins help, then the solution is to slow down how many items get posted to the main page. --Khajidha (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and if most admins do follow even just these basic steps, how do so many issues get into the queues? The main page of Misplaced Pages gets between 16 and 20 million hits a day, the last thing we want there is to present sub-standard material – our readers won't know the arcane rules around DYK and its lost "original" cause, to encourage new users to get to see their article featured. The readers will just expect DYK to be of the same quality as TFA, OTD and ITN. I'm afraid it seldom is. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

But this isn't just the fault of the admins. There are a whole chain of people involved in getting a DYK to the main page. Most particularly the reviewer, who is supposed to be checking all of the above before the nomination even gets the famous tick. And then there's the promoter, who is also tasked with checking the hook accuracy and the verifiability. That individual is typically a DYK regular, so really there shouldn't be any faulty hooks getting past that second phase. So yes, of course it's incumbent on the promoting admins to make sure everything's OK, but remaining issues at that point should be few and far between.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid the admins who promote to the queue take ultimate responsibility for ensuring they've carried out their duties, and as we see every single day, that isn't the case, even some of the fundamental basics which I've listed above are overlooked, let alone the longer list of issues which should be being checked. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Well evidently something is going wrong, because we're told that admins are spending up to two hours on a single hook set, and yet errors still seem to creep through. I'm not sure why the nominators and reviewers are being let off the hook here... prevention is better than cure.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Admins are entrusted with more responsibilities, therefore the expectations on them are higher. Also, at least some of the articles being highlighted here are done by newer editors who are expected to make mistakes. --Khajidha (talk) 11:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha, even with 8 hooks we get complaints that the main page is out of balance. --valereee (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

1) That's not really relevant to the function of DYK. 2) We only have to worry about "balance" because we have forced ourselves into a silly two-column layout. Put the Main Page in a single column and this "problem" disappears forever. --Khajidha (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC) Or, to put it more bluntly "we need to put more crappy hooks on the page so that the poorly designed layout doesn't look even worse" is not a valid argument. --Khajidha (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's becoming clearer to me that there should be a difference between a "behaviour-patrolling admin" and a "content-curating admin". It's one job to spot vandals and issue blocks, and protect pages which are being overtly vandalised (that's the first kind of admin) but it's entirely different to be able to understand the requirements of good writing, sourcing, and article construction (that's the second kind of admin) needed to protect the main page. Perhaps it would be interesting to see how many admins just block/protect vs how many admins fix issues through protection (e.g. on the main page). There needs to be some investigation into splitting the responsibilities so those of us who have a track record of more than a decade of caring about the integrity of the encyclopedia can do something about it rather than wait for the vandal-hunting admins to spare a second or two to fix issues that sit on the main page for half a day. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem I get is that when I look at a prep to move into queue, inevitably I haven't got the faintest idea what any of the topics are about. If I'm really lucky, I'll understand one off the top of my head; if I'm super-duper lucky, there might just possibly be two. For everything else, I've got to read the article and sources and work out what it's about, what's likely to be true and what looks suspicious. That takes between 10-20 minutes depending on the article; even more if it's anything to do with science or medicine. Scale that up 8 times, and you're asking me to take two hours to review a prep -> queue transfer. The alternative is I either a) I move the prep straight to queue with a note on WT:DYK saying "there may be errors, if so, ERRORS and complain there" or b) move the prep to queue while pulling anything that looks odd - which I then get shouted at and demand to re-review and fix, which is inevitably on a topic I don't care much about. Sucks to be a content-caring admin at times. Ritchie333 11:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me then. I can normally scan a DYK prep in half an hour and normally find between 2 and 3 issues. Right now I don't have much time (and following the way you were recently treated) inclination to bother, and I see ERRORS packed with doozies daily. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

So, if the people running the project can't actually run it to comply with their own policies, why do we keep it around?--Khajidha (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a general vibe of (a) denial and (b) "it's not FA"! because that excuses everything. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie, it takes me that long, too. TRM, it's easy to find 2 or 3 issues in a half hour. The trick is to try to find ALL the issues so that no one else comes along after you and finds the one you missed. The 80/20 principle. --valereee (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Ugh Ritchie333 --valereee (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Well no, the trick is to find as many obvious issues and that can be done in half an hour. I can almost invariably find two or three issues in every single queue. I'm brilliant, but I'm not sure why others overlook so many clear problems. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's more that what may be blindingly obvious to me isn't to you, and vice versa. Once an issue is pointed out, we go, "Oh, yeah, I can't believe I didn't see that!" Once you do see it, it seems obvious, and you wonder how no one else saw it. Before you see it, not so much. I caught an error the other day that you didn't see. Neither did the nom, reviewer, or promoter. But to me it seemed obvious. --valereee (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem is that the participants in the DYK process are looking at these nominations in terms of getting them on the Main Page. It would make more sense to me to run the process with the mindset of "Okay, how can we keep this one OFF the Main Page? How is it messed up?" If your goal is to get the item posted, you are more likely to overlook problems. --Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK

NOTE TO SELF: DO NOT MOVE THESE TO ERRORS...

Sca another mobile phone advert appearing tomorrow! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about these. I hate having them on the main page. What's the answer? --valereee (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with featuring articles about commercial products, if they're notable and encyclopedic. The one scheduled for tomorrow looks like it fails the interesting-to-a-broad-audience test, though. Who gives a shit how big its battery is?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone who is considering buying one, I'd assume. :D There aren't really many new products that have a feature so unusual or groundbreaking that it would be of interest to someone not considering purchasing that or a similar product, so basically the definition of 'not of interest to a general audience.' The last one I can remember was the flat wine bottle. --valereee (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Then such nominations should be failed as they don't meet one of the fundamental principles of DYK. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm with you in theory. It's just that broad interest is difficult to measure. Someone's interested in this stuff or they wouldn't be writing about it. I've written some hooks I thought were fascinating that got a couple thousand views, and seen others that I had zero interest in that ended up with three times as many. :) But for commercially available products I'm wondering if there might be an exception to that. OTOH, clearly there are people who are interested in reading about products they have no actual intention of buying, or magazines about product categories -- cars, guns, tech, even fashion -- would never have existed. --valereee (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Never mind the quality, what about the ellipsis???

Outstanding! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

26

• No queue with 14 hours to go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Queue 4:
• Khalili Collections - already maintenance tagged, and rightly so. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

   Done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Heather Olmstead - the article says she held the record at the time of her selection which was in 2019, not 2018. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

   Done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Roar (1981 film) - the two sources for "150 untrained big cats", one says " 150 untrained and wild lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs and elephants " so that's 150 including "elephants" which aren't big cats as far as I'm aware, the other says "more than 130 wild animals, including lions, tigers, jaguars, and an elephant" so not "150" (but a single elephant, which, as far as I know, is still not a big cat". Basics. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  Still not fixed. It's obvious that the number of "big cats" is uncertain from the two sources in the article. "At least 130" would probably be the only answer given the ambiguity. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  The second source does say "lived, ate and slept in the company of 150 lions, tigers, cheetahs and jaguars"  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  Amakuru But two other sources have different numbers, in such circumstances it is conventional to go for the most conservative estimate rather than pick the one with the most. It’s clear no one really knows the answer so Misplaced Pages should not be selecting one and stating it as fact, that’s really really poor behaviour. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 05:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  There are now three sources which describe the number of animals, including big cats. One says 130 including an elephant, one says 150 including elephants, and one says 150 cats. As we would do with poorly reported numbers of deaths in disasters, we always go for the lowest and use phrases like "at least". The current hook has cherry-picked a single source ahead of two other conflicting sources, all of which are in the article. This is simply not good enough. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 06:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

   Done The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• KGCX (AM) - it may well of "prided itself" but that's hardly encyclopedic. What it actually did was claim to be the smallest in the world - after all, how could they possibly know that??!! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

   Fixed  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru just the last two to deal with... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Well it took a while but we did it! We go again, tomorrow is another day! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

27

• Less than seven hours to go and no queue exists. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  Too busy tonight to do any checking I'm afraid, and don't want to breach the WP:ADMINACCT and all that by uploading the queue blind... 🤔  — Amakuru (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed. I'm catching up after my day out at Roots Hall. Epic stuff. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Eagle Woman - the hook says "only woman" the lead says "first woman". The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

OTD

26

• Battle of the Chateauguay - dreadfully under-referenced, not suitable for the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Replaced with Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. —howcheng {chat} 16:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• Joey Salceda - most of the political career section (six paras of this BLP) is unreferenced, the only reference that is there is dead. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Replaced with Suhailah Noah. —howcheng {chat} 16:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

27

• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - just the 18 tags. Not good enough. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Banská Bystrica - 27 October is not verifiable in the provided inline citation. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
• Lope de Aguirre - where is date of death referenced?? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Ping section

Bygone

Personal attack from admin

Behaving like a jerk this is counterproductive to basically everything I can think of. --valereee (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

That was a statement of actual fact. The queue had been promoted, then Gatoclass reviewed it and found three problematic hooks, one of which still remains unresolved on the main page. Then I found three issues in 20 minutes. Resorting to personal attacks is highly unbecoming of an admin and I suggest you remove it with an apology. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, that was not intended to be a personal attack. I intentionally worded it to say you were behaving like a jerk rather than actually calling you a jerk, but I've revised to replace "behaving like a jerk" with "behaving like this". It's the scare quotes. It's just thisy to say another person "reviewed" it. You don't have to actually act thisy to point out the issues you find. It's counterproductive. It makes FEWER people want to work at DYK and it makes NO ONE want to work harder. --valereee (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't follow you at all. When moving from prep to queue, it had to be reviewed by someone, I don't know who, I haven't even looked. Then three further issues were discovered by Gatoclass, one of which wasn't resolved until about ten minutes ago. In the meantime, I found three further issues. That's all I said. A pure statement of fact and you're here now to attack me for that. And you're an admin? I'm genuinely disappointed and harassed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry this makes you feel harrassed, and I'm sorry you're disappointed. I find your article and hook checking extremely useful. When I agree an issue is an error, I try to address it. I also think your primary motivation is to improve the encyclopedia; often I see you making multiple helpful edits to articles for hooks nearing the main page while I’m doing the same. But if I'm actively participating at your page and see you making comments I think are not cool, I don't feel like I have a choice but to comment. If you'd prefer me to stop participating, I'll respect that, but I'd rather keep working together. --valereee (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

There was nothing "not cool" about what I said. It was PURE FACT. A set was promoted somehow with no fewer than six issues. My comments were also in the context of the discussion that was already taking place on that page relating to how long it takes to perform cursory reviews and note issues. Coming to my talk page to try to circumvent NPA but still to basically call me a jerk is plain harassment and is incredibly disappointing. If you don't like the statements of facts that I make, I'll avoid notifying you of the issues I find time and again. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Rollback abuse

The issues continue unaddressed....