Template:Did you know nominations/Computer Engineer Barbie


 * 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 Allen3 talk 16:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Computer Engineer Barbie

 * ... that girls are better at computers than boys?
 * Reviewed: Biertan fortified church from this nomination. Template:Did you know nominations/Biertan fortified church, Câlnic Citadel, Dârjiu fortified church, Prejmer fortified church, Saschiz fortified church, Valea Viilor fortified church, Viscri fortified church

Created by Tokyogirl79 (talk). Drmies(talk), - Nominated by Hafspajen (talk) at 17:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC). Yngvadottir (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT1... that Computer Engineer Barbie was created in 2010 at the urging of women in technology but the accompanying book depicts Barbie as helpless without men's assistance?
 * ALT2... that the book accompanying Computer Engineer Barbie was withdrawn in 2014 after protests that it depicts Barbie as incompetent with computers?
 * ALT3... that Computer Engineer Barbie runs Linux?


 * Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough and reliably sourced; however, it looks over-referenced to me. Is it really necessary to have up to 8 sources (!) for a single statement? I'd strongly recommend trimming the citations. The hooks are all OK; I think ALT1 is possibly the best one. If the excessive citations can be sorted out I'd be happy to give this one a tick. Prioryman (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We say that there is no such thing as too many references, but if this is a problem, I withdraw nom instead. Thanks. You may wan't to read the comment at Yngvadottir's page, section Thumb, under the Turkey, about the merger of two articles into one, and thus the bigger amount of refs.  Hafspajen (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * As the main content creators, would it be possible to reduce the number of redundant inline cites? It's not a DYK requirement, but having more than three citations (running the same story) for a statement does impair the readability of the article. I'd rather not have to close this on such a simple fix. Fuebaey (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you can talk to Yngvadottir on her page, but she expressed her wish not to remove references. If that's a reason not to give green tick than we decline and thereby withdraw nomination. Sorry. Hafspajen (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Last chance - could maybe come up with some solution, cheers, Hafspajen (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Prioryman, I made a sneaky little tweak. Does it look better to you? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I agree with choosing ALT1. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Last hope. Hafspajen (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My last hope is that not each and any DYK entry will be treated like this. FUBAR Serten 06:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Overreaction much? I've amended the article myself to sort out the citation overkill. A case in point: the simple three-word statement "the company apologized" was cited to no less than four sources. This is unnecessary and as Fuebaey rightly says above, it harms readability. You only need one source for a statement that simple and uncontentious. I've been through the article and sources carefully and found other problems that I fixed; I found a quotation (which I've removed) that wasn't in any of the cited sources and some sources were being cited even though they did not mention the things they were supposedly being cited to support. I've fixed this one too. Given that I've edited the article significantly I'm probably not now best placed to sign it off here, so I'll ask for another editor to complete the review. Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I know Yngvadottir for a very conscious editor, who is very careful to do things right. I do not really feel that readability has been much compromised, to be sincere. For any editor who will take over - you may want to read THIS : User talk:Drmies - about the history of this article, how two editors started to write two articles in the same time ( with the amount of references required) - and how theses got merged into one. An explanation for the amount of refs.  It's all here at User talk:Drmies. Hafspajen (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Please note that a QPQ review will need to be done. Effective November 21, all nominations for DYK are subject to QPQ requirements, not solely self-nominations, and Hafspajen has more than five DYK credits. Question: Drmies is mentioned in the initial DYK credits, but not given a DYKmake. Is this an oversight, or a deliberate choice? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'll have a look later today when I have time., I thank you for your edits and your assistance. Give me a bit of time--Hafspajen, take it easy, all is well. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * MIES; you always have to edit conflict me! No problem at all. See above added. My only question. Are those counted like seven or just one, because it was just as much of a work to review each and every one, like if they were singles. Hafspajen (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * .. Hafspajen (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hafspajen, QPQs are article for article, so you've only used one of them here. It looks like Gerda Arendt has already claimed QPQ credit for at least one of the seven nominated articles, so be sure to claim only the ones you did. Thanks for the quick response! (Drmies already pinged me; now I have an edit conflict!) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, NOW I remember! Yes, I mean, no - it was three she did, Dârjiu fortified church; Viscri fortified churchand Câlnic Citadel . Mine were  Biertan fortified church,  Prejmer fortified church, Saschiz fortified church and .. hm, lost a church somewhere.  Hafspajen (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * AH, it was Valea Viilor fortified church. So I use then Biertan fortified church for this nom. Sill have 3 left plus two articles more somewhere. Hafspajen (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * AARR, now Yngvadottir removed herself from the Created by. Ah, blast it all. Hafspajen (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I have a proposal. Let's just run it like it is. I didn't really see the point of all this pruning, but I also don't see the purpose a continued battle serves. Prioryman made at least one good point ("get their geek on"), and while I don't agree that so many of these references had to be cut, it's more important that the world gets to have a good laugh at the possibly well-intentioned but totally boneheaded attempt that CEB stands for--and maybe the next Barbie will be more real. Let's just run it. One more thing, if I may. Prioryman, we've met before; Fuebaey, I don't believe we have, but I've done a DYK review or two. I have very high standards for DYKs and more than once have I had to hear "but that it's good writing is not a DYK requirement!" and stuff like that. Perhaps there is a plethora of citations here, perhaps there are too many, perhaps--on the other hand--a point is made by the wealth of citations: the qualities of CEB are widely recognized to be ridiculous, and that's a point worth emphasizing. The number of citations in the pre-Prioryman version is high, yes, but the article was not unreadable, far from it, and saying it might not pass because of it is not kosher: it does not fit with DYK practice, it poses abnormally high standards, and it diminishes the work done by and investment of by the writers which, as you should be able to tell, is significant. But let's just run it, get a bunch of hits, and we'll see what happens with the article afterward., please send this on if you can. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have met but I've seen you mosey around. I have nothing against the article and if I had, I wouldn't have bothered trying to convince the nominator not to withdraw. I did state that citation spam would not disqualify this DYK and it would have been a lot less dramatic had the nominator called for a new reviewer if they disagreed with the original review. No one can force a reviewer to pass something they are not comfortable with, even if it's not a DYK requirement. Expecting a reviewer to fix issues is counterproductive because it prevents them from approving that same submission. Given the dearth of reviewers, a little appreciation wouldn't go amiss for someone taking the time to go through the nomination. Yes, some do point out inconsequential things but the bigger picture is it gets posted quicker with a simple fix. Though a block of text is a good way to elicit tl;dr and a longer wait. Good luck anyways. Fuebaey (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fuebaey, I appreciate the work. I have a few hundred DYKs, so I have a few hundred DYKs--believe me, I know what it is like to not get thanked, but I also know what it's like to fix articles that are nominated. I just wouldn't call this "citation spam". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Point is, ones comfort zone feeling is not to be main base of reviews. Compare Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_110. Serten 08:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

New review request. Fuebaey (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi all. New to this thread, but not to the issues at play with this article. My $.02: First, there is no way we can run it on DYK with that hook. Hooks can certainly be playful but they should be factual, and the suggested hook is only going to create more unnecessary controversy. Second: I don't see the problem with citations. As it currently stands, citation numbers seem fine and not overly done. Lastly, I'd recommend ALT2 as my first choice of hook, followed by ALT3. ALT1 is awkwardly worded. ALT3 is fine, but doesn't much convey the newsworthiness of this article. ALT2 seems perfect. I do think this is an important issue and it would be smart to move it along. Girona7 (talk)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article is an interesting read, meeting all the DYK criteria (as already stated above) and well worth appearing on DYK. ALT2 is my preferred choice of hook, though the sentence in the article about the book being withdrawn did not state a date - I've edited the article to add the date in the sentence, hopefully this doesn't preclude me from reviewing this nomination! To be honest, if I was writing the hook I would have said "social media protests", because I don't see any evidence people were out marching in the streets (or paying much notice at all until 2014), but the implications in the supporting news citations is that the social media outrage embarrassed Mattel into withdrawing the book, which is probably a close enough match to the interpretation presented in the hook for DYK purposes. It draws readers in to find out more. Good to go at last! Sionk (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I've struck the original hook, as it was not supported in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)