Template:Did you know nominations/A Walk Across America


 * 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Declined per Prhartcom and Dravecky, whose issues vis a vis DYK appear germane.

A Walk Across America

 * ... that A Walk Across America can lead to a college classroom?
 * ALT1: ... that during A Walk Across America, Peter Jenkins buried his best friend?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Chicken in the Rough
 * Comment: Dear reviewers, I am trying something new by writing a book review. Please be gentle but firm in your helpful criticism.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

5x expanded by Georgejdorner (talk). Self-nominated at 17:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The article is sufficiently long and had been expanded by more than five times on the nomination date (4,542 characters on 7 May compared to 259 characters on 22 November 2014). I did not notice any copyright violation or close paraphrasing. However, I think the following issues need to be fixed:
 * The article is almost completely unreferenced. I would suggest that the text in the "Synopsis" section be cited to appropriate pages of the book. The contents of the "Themes" section and the first paragraph of the "Publication details" section also need to be referenced.
 * The hook is of an appropriate length, but I am not sure whether a citation to reviews on Amazon.com (footnote 3) constitutes a reliable reference. Also, I don't know if the rather cryptic way in which the hook is phrased is usual for "Did you know".
 * — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The Synopsis section is drawn from the book in its entirety. I can place cites stating such, though the source is self-evident and the cites would be overkill. In similar situations, I have noted no references given by other editors.
 * I do believe that reference to Amazon to illustrate the book's continuing popularity is a valid reference. Please note that I do not quote any reviews, or do I refer to any facts from Amazon&mdash;merely the great number of reviews the book has garnered, showing the public's interest in it. For this it is reliable.
 * A cryptic hook gathers page views because readers want to satisfy their curiosity about it.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * My concern about footnote 3 which references the hook is that you are relying on Amazon reviews to establish that the book is used as a text in colleges. Can't you find a more reliable source? Also, the content in "Themes" and the first paragraph of "Publication details" remain unreferenced. As for the other points (referencing of the "Synopsis" section and the cryptic nature of the hook), I'll leave it to the DYK volunteer who is closing the review to make the final decision. — SMUconlaw (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It may seem a niggling difference to note that I wrote that a reviewer claims to use the text in classrooms, rather than for me to directly claim its use in classrooms. Nevertheless, the former claim is supported by the Amazon reference. I agree that to support the latter claim (which I did not make), a different reference is needed. However, it is such a minor point that it may yet be deleted without harming the article. Let's see what another reviewer will say.
 * P.S. I did change "reviewers" to "reviewer" for accuracy's sake. Also, if you are not going to approve this nomination, please ask for a further review.Georgejdorner (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but your hook ("... can lead to a college classroom") asserts the use of the text in college classrooms rather than states that one Amazon reviewer claims to have used the textbook in his or her class. Thus, footnote 3 may not fully support the hook. If you delete the sentence about the (alleged) use of the book in a college classroom, then you will have to rewrite the hook entirely. I don't think it's for me to call for a second review – doesn't the DYK volunteer decide if one is necessary? — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hook has been struck, per your objections. A new hook has been supplied, and the referent sentence in the article emended.
 * Either party in a review may ask for another reviewer. However, I hope these changes will garner your approval without that.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Requesting new reviewer to check over the hooks and sourcing. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Georgejdorner, terrific choice of an article to improve and to nominate for DYN, and great job on the compelling article prose. This is a very promising start. However, the article is unacceptably lacking in reliable sources, relying solely on the primary source and on an unacceptable self-published Amazon.com user review. Please read other Wikipedia book articles (especially these for the best examples) of what is required for this article to deserve DYN. The Analysis section in particular requires much expansion; it will require heading over to the library to read The New York Times and National Geographic articles from 1979 at the very least, which we know will have published applicable critical commentary. I wish you well-deserved encouragement and the best of luck. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What's DYN mean?Georgejdorner (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant "DYK" Prhartcom (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the usage of a self-published source (if Amazon.com is to be considered such):
 * "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
 * the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources."
 * I do believe my usage of Amazon.com as a source falls within these guidelines.
 * I would gladly research the Times and National Geo if my small rural library stocked such archives. Do you have any other suggestions for sources?
 * I put some thought into this; I spent some time trying to access NYT archive but it appears to be subscription only. I will continue to look for sources and reply back if I find any. For myself, I get most of my sources from books. Prhartcom (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I spent a little more time and took the suggestion of the editor who left a tip on your Talk page here: User talk:Georgejdorner. Prhartcom (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Another: Prhartcom (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Several more: search Google for: ""A Walk Across America" 1979 "Peter Jenkins" site:news.google.com/newspapers", which turn up sources such as this. Prhartcom (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Bookrags.com has an entire curriculum based on this book; however, I am dubious of its acceptability for this article.
 * I do have a pretty good general idea of what's needed for a successful DYK, given that I have posted 55 of them previously. I am unfamiliar with the specifics of this particular niche of the book review, and was hoping to pick up enough pointers to continue writing them.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Georgejdorner, with your experience, surely you know the importance of WP:RS. Any reader clicking on this DYK from the Main page would be taken to this article in its current state, written without a single reliable source. All articles, not just those seeking recognition, must be written according to what is published in reliable, secondary sources. On Wikipedia we do not write from facts that we have experienced ourselves. We write from facts published in reliable sources. And they are out there for this article; it will just take a little effort and determination to find them. As well, this article is incomplete; a paragraph relating the critical reception this book enjoyed is necessary before any recognition. And again, this critical reception must be published in reliable sources. As you know, the article currently alludes to coverage from the New York Times and National Geographic, it just does not provide it yet. Take a look at the good examples I provided and you will see critical reception sections that others have done. This WP:RS objection I have is not unreasonable; it is the same as the reviewer before me (above) and it would be the same for any other reviewer. Take heart, from my own experience I know that this can be accomplished and I have faith that you are the one who can do it. I truly hope you undertake this research to find these sources. Best of luck, Prhartcom (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I not only know the need for reliable sources, as stated above, I resent your bad faith comments accusing me of original research, so can the condescending lecture.
 * While you are at it, how about justifying your designation of Amazon.com as a self-published source? Then explain why you ignored WP's allowable exceptions for use of self-published sources.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Article does not pass as it is completely unreferenced. All citations are to the primary source, the subject of the article. One exception is a reference to a self-published Amazon.com review. Article therefore has no reliable sources and must not appear on the Main page until this is corrected. This conclusion has been reached by two reviewers. Prhartcom (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg I'm all for leniency and working to improve articles but there's been little practical work in a month and, even though plenty of reliable sources are available, the article is almost entirely self-referentially sourced to the subject book. It's time to focus our energies on other articles and decline this nomination. - Dravecky (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)