Template:Did you know nominations/Big Data (band)

Withdrawn by nominator as of 12 January 2014.

Big Data (band)

 * ... that Rochester-based electronic pop duo Big Data released an interactive music video called Facehawk that connects to your Facebook profile?
 * Reviewed: Open Government Licence
 * Comment: An interesting and (I thought) out of the ordinary musical group, and an interesting concept for a music video, thought it might be worthwhile.

Created by MarkTraceur (talk). Self nominated at 03:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg - long enough (just), well reffed, interesting hook, no evidence of para phrasing, hook reffed and short enough. Thanks - interesting that the band have no free-to-use picture I can see Victuallers (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg This article does not currently deal adequately with the subject (per WP:DYKSG) and needs more work. In particular, the text of the article fails to name the members of the duo and their roles in the band, and also doesn't say when it was formed, which are highly problematic omissions. (The infobox does not count toward this purpose, and is more confusing than not, especially in giving two cities for the band, which is completely baffling since there is no explanation of what this means in the body of the article.) I think the hook is a very interesting one indeed and look forward to seeing it run, but too much of it doesn't have proper inline sourcing, so I've struck it: the "Rochester-based" wasn't in the article at all much less sourced (and was removed from the hook when it was promoted the first time), and "electronic pop duo" appears in the article but is not sourced by the end of the sentence in which it is stated, a DYK requirement. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions; I don't imagine it will take long to flesh out these necessary details. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi User:BlueMoonset, I'm sorry I took so long to get back to you - it has been a busy few weeks! I think I will let the nomination lapse, so if you'd like to close this it would be fine. I haven't had, and don't foresee having in the near future, the time to work on the article. But thank you for your insight! I will reproduce it on the article talk page so it can be a useful reference for editors there. --MarkTraceur (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think this is extending the rules. D7 says the subject has to be covered. This new rule? about the information having to be in the infobox is just scope creep. To say that a band must mention the roles of the members!! There are only two of them! .... oh and without a date of formation the article is totally incomplete ? Can someone please review, this review of my review (or can this review of my review by the reviewers reviewer be reviewed by the reviewers reviewer?) I thank you for this oversight role but this is not (always) encouraging contributions to this project. Do feel free to complete this and approve when you are heppy. Victuallers (talk) 14:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Victuallers, you misunderstand me: I don't think the information has to be in the infobox at all; I'm saying that key information should be in the article proper, not solely in the infobox. I guess we disagree on what basic information for a band should be. I'll see if I can find someone to stop by and re-review on content, though the "electronic pop duo" phrase must be inline sourced in the article at the end of the sentence where it appears regardless—that's hook sourcing 101. If by "do feel free to complete this and approve when you are happy" you mean I should go and do the necessary research to fill in the missing material: sorry, but no. This is the job of the article's writer, and as I note above, it shouldn't take long to do by someone already familiar with the material. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I share BlueMoonset's concern that this article is too thin in its present form. I don't think there's a particular set of information that needs to be in every article about a band, but I do think that any such article needs to have more basic information than this article has. In particular, I think that the infobox should not be a substitute for article text. Basic information that's in the infobox should also be in the article; in this case, I had to go to the infobox to find the names of the band members and an indication of what country the band is based in. That's kind of pathetic. Revise the article to provide some information about the band, such as who its members are, how they got together, what their music consists of (do they play instruments? do they have vocals?), etc. --Orlady (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing about this - its just a matter of opinion. However if reviews are going to be re-reviewed when there is no mistake but just a difference of opinion about the interpretation of this and that then we are avoiding the main task of improving the wiki or catching important errors. I have been volunteering my time to approve nominations and I'm happy to have my mistakes caught, but I feel that this finessing is just deterring assistance. I guess this is another  which I do hope we can find a volunteer for. I'm happy to review as a volunteer to rules but they should be that. Victuallers (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Victuallers, all approved nominations are checked again when a person assembling a prep set sees a likely looking hook and plans to promote it. Sometimes issues not seen by the reviewer are caught by the person assembling the set—indeed, this is an important extra stage in the process. In this case, I saw a very interesting approved hook that I wanted to promote while working on filling a set, but when I did my due diligence and gave the article another check, I thought it was too thin to warrant main page treatment. I also noted problems with hook sourcing which haven't yet been addressed, so there's no point in calling for a new review before there's a new fully supported hook, or a restatement of the original one with proper inline sourcing as noted above. As for the article needing more basic information: I still think that, Orlady thinks that, so until this is also addressed by adding further information to the article there isn't any point in calling for a reviewer. (I'm also completely at sea as to why you think adding the information we've requested to this article is not improving the wiki. The article will clearly be better once it includes additional basic information about the band.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Per reply by nominator Mark Traceur above, he is letting the nomination lapse, so closing it as withdrawn. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)