Template:Did you know nominations/Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences

Add links
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: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences[edit]

(
)

Created/expanded by Groupuscule (talk). Self nom at 02:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Newness/Length: Good. Fine expansion. Hook: Too long. Maybe United States could be abbreviated USA or the date could be removed to make this eligible. Abyssal (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Well I think we should run it on October 21. Really the title is not essential for DYK... it was in French anyway... so how about Alt1
  • ... that philosopher Jacques Derrida popularized poststructuralism in the US with a lecture delivered in Baltimore on 21 October 1966?
  • I really think the hook text should have the name of the lecture, it seems pretty bland without it. We could run the DYK on October 21 without mentioning the date the original lecture was given. Abyssal (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Your choice for either. groupuscule (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC) For a shorter & more hooking third option, we could appeal to the locations:
  • Alt2 ... that a lecture delivered in Baltimore popularized French post-structuralism among American academics?
  • PLEASE RUN ALT HOOK 3 ON THE 21ST OF THIS MONTH. Abyssal (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • First, it is inappropriate for the creator/reviser of a hook to approve it, especially when a new claim is made (in this case, "popularized French post-structuralism among American academics", which seems to me to have inadequate support in the article text): if one of the article's reviewers does so, then someone independent needs to review that hook. As for as the article itself is concerned, the first two paragraphs in the Content section are not cited (DYK requires at least one citation per paragraph), the second paragraph in the Lévi-Strauss subsection is also uncited, and there is a significant problem with the second paragraph of "Structure and myth": the blockquote isn't identifiable as a blockquote because of the lefthand image and because of the lack of a reference for the quoted paragraph. This must be fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello & thanks of course to both of you
  • Image moved to make blockquote(s) more visible.
  • Uncited para about Levi-Strauss deleted.
  • In my humble opinion: the top paragraphs under "Content" do not require citation, since, like a lead, they summarize the blow-by-blow description of content (generally cited claim by claim, much more than one per paragraph). If necessary, one could add citations from almost any summary of the essay... but these would be trivial precisely because they could come from almost any summary of the essay.
  • I don't see at all what's wrong with Abyssal's new hook, which simply reintroduces the author's name from the original.
  • There is an argument to be made about the top paragraphs under "Content", though it's unusual to have more than one of an introduction uncited. Still, as long as everything in them is covered (and cited) below in that section, your point makes sense.
  • The blockquote itself should be cited. Yes, you say that Derida is quoting from the book, but each blockquote needs its own citation, as it's effectively its own paragraph. (Alternatively, you could place the citation immediately after the colon preceding the blockquote; that's another way I've seen it done.)
  • There isn't anything wrong, per se, with Abyssal's hook. I hadn't noticed that it was you rather than he who introduced the new element I was concerned about, "American academics", so I thought it needed to be checked by an independent reviewer. Sorry for the confusion.
  • Once the blockquote in Structure and myth is cited, this should be ready to go. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Voilà! groupuscule (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Apparently I have to approve this myself again because of some technicality. Here you go, Moonset. Abyssal (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Structure,_Sign,_and_Play_in_the_Discourse_of_the_Human_Sciences&oldid=829322105"