Template:Did you know nominations/Bowling Green massacre


 * 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: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Bowling Green massacre

 * ... that the Bowling Green massacre never happened? Source: Phipps, Claire (February 3, 2017) Kellyanne Conway blames refugees for 'Bowling Green massacre' that never happened The Guardian
 * Reviewed: Stripe-breasted woodpecker

Created by many authors. Nominated by Jonathunder (talk) at 09:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC).


 * We'll need an actual list of authors, because we need to eventually distribute credits for this. ~ Rob 13 Talk 10:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not Jonathunder, but I can start with a list of top 5 authors by edit count:
 * (14 edits, 842 bytes added)
 * (this comment's author) (16 edits, 1,652 bytes added)
 * (25 edits, 3,041 bytes added)
 * (27 edits, 816 bytes added)
 * (28 edits, 9,592 bytes added)
 * By byte additions we can also add (1,773 bytes) and  (897 bytes). epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Maybe it's best to go with that list for now and post a notification on the talk page asking if anyone else feels they should be credited. If someone pops up, we can evaluate their contributions to the article at that time to see if they justify a credit. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Whoever's interested should reply to the following ping below, in the meantime. Pinging. epicgenius (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm replying to the ping. How can I help? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your large additions to the article. I'll credit you shortly. I think everything is all set except for the QPQ, which Jonathunder or one of those pinged need to do, and the review. epicgenius (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, coolness. Let me know if you need anything, . :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to propose alt ALTs: epicgenius (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ALT1: ...that no one was killed or hurt in the Bowling Green massacre since it never actually happened? (sourced to same website as above ALT0)
 * ALT2: ...that there were vigils for the nonexistent Bowling Green massacre in Bowling Green, Kentucky, and Bowling Green, New York City? Source 1 - Courier-Journal, Source 2 - NY Daily News
 * ALT3: ...that the Bowling Green massacre takes alternative facts to a new level? Source 3- Washington Post
 * Thanks, but I prefer the original hook - precisely because it is NOT very informative. The idea of a hook is to grab people's attention and get them to click on the link and read the article. (See H7 here.) This hook could even go in the final position, where they put hooks that are a little bit quirky or surprising. MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. The reason I had doubts about hook #0 is because: (1) just saying it never happened won't really convince people that this was a real issue being really debated (not). I could say that the Death Star was never exploded because it never existed, or that Harry Potter's parents were never killed by Voldemort because he doesn't exist. But the massacre statement happened in a real-life context during a serious discussion, whereas the Death Star and Voldemort's murder of Harry Potter's parents were made up by George Lucas and J. K. Rowling in a context where people expect these things to be made-up. And (2)  we could explain what did happen as a result of the comment and make it catchy at the same time. But if ALT0 is better, it's up to the discretion of the reviewer. epicgenius (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg New article, plenty long enough. References look good at first glance - although I haven't checked through them in detail, or for paraphrasing issues (will do this soon). There are some broad issues that need addressing first though:
 * The hook: The main hook is catchy, but it needs more context. Consider mentioning the country at least, if not the quote attribution/wider context. Of the current ALTs, ALT2 looks reasonable to me. ALT1 just adds words to the main hook without adding information, and ALT3 is not neutral.
 * Neutrality: I'm not convinced that the article is neutrally written as it is. Various statements use modifiers like "in fact" that aren't necessary, and make the article read like a debunking/rebuttal of the statements rather than neutral coverage of them. Some of the facts quoted don't seem to be quite right: just picking on one statement, the article says "90 newspapers", but the ref says "90 news stories" (one newspaper could have issued multiple stories). Also, are there opposing reactions (e.g., from the republican party/white house) that can be included?
 * Article lead: this needs work to cover all of the article's content. At the moment it includes background info that should be elsewhere in the article (see below), and doesn't cover significant parts of the reactions.
 * Background: I'd strongly encourage you to consider adding a background section covering the run-up to the statements to explain why is this a significant event. Will someone looking back at this in 5 years time understand the context? This is also where the info about the travel ban, the Obama checks, and the Bowling Green arrests can be covered. That they are covered instead under 'follow-up' reflects the ways that the facts were discovered by the media, not the way that they should be covered in an encyclopaedia article.
 * I hope this review helps, and isn't viewed as being too harsh! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comprehensive review so far. This might be a lot of improvements for a DYK; I think that with these edits you suggest, it may actually be eligible as a Good Article. That said, the editors working on this article, including I, will fix these issues over the coming days. Best, epicgenius (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How about this: epicgenius (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ALT4: ... that U.S. presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway's mention of a nonexistent massacre in Bowling Green, Kentucky went viral?
 * ALT4 looks good to me. It does look to me like the article is heading towards GA-level, but there will be more points than just the ones I raised above to consider before then. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In regard to your concerns:
 * Hook:
 * Neutrality: I did as much as I can to remove weasel words and dubious phrasings.
 * Lead: ✅, I expanded it more.
 * Background: I split it.
 * Regards, epicgenius (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * * And I added a QPQ. MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That was quick! I'm just about to enter a radio quiet zone for the next few days, so it will likely be Saturday or Sunday before I can complete this review: if someone else wants to complete it instead then please feel free. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, second review. Most things look fine (newness, length as before, QPQ is done), hook ALT4 looks good (interesting, properly formatted, 125 characters long, the 'viral' angle is referenced to NYT on February 3, 2017 in the article) and I've struck the others. The lead looks better, as does the background section giving the context.
 * With the policy points:
 * Neutral: I'm still a bit worried about the neutrality of the article, but with the weasel words removed it looks better, and the views are all specified quotes.
 * Inline cites: this looks fine.
 * Copyright vio / paraphrasing issues: the copvio checker does return a number of possible matches, but it looks like these are due to others copying the Wikipedia article (in the case of Reddit), or matches on the quotes in the article (e.g., money.cnn.com, Washington Post, and others), so I don't think there's any concerns here. If someone could have a second look through to double-check this, though, that would be good.
 * A minor point is that the "Other possible misstatements" section title looks odd in the new position (although I like this placing of the section content). Maybe consider rewording it, but that's not DYK-related. Also, you don't need to specify access dates for references that have publication dates, but again no big deal.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Overall, it looks good to go. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)