Template:Did you know nominations/Fertility factor (demography)


 * 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  —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  00:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Fertility factor (demography)

 * ... that a parent's number of children is a strong fertility factor for the next generation?
 * ALT1 ...living in rural (pictured) rather than urban areas is a fertility factor, associated with an increased number of children?



Created by Mikael Häggström (talk). Self-nominated at 20:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Before I do a complete review, I have to note that this article suffers from some rather serious grammatical and general writing problems. It even refers to itself in the lede, "this article...". But there is a lot of interesting information in here, and I'm loath to hold it up on that basis alone. So I'd like some comments here: DYK is not a content review and technically an article with poor writing can still meet every DYK requirement. Do I proceed, or place this on the "special list" and suggest fixing it before re-noming? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg  recently, I have been reviewing a lot of DYK nominations, and this particular nomination definitely isn't poorer written than most. I'm not saying it meets FA quality standards, but failing this nomination right off the bat on the basis of poor English would be wholly unfair. Therefore, I request another reviewer takes a new, fresh look at this article. —♦♦  AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  14:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, it was a good point, so I've converted the mentioned text to a hatnote: . Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If there are significant issues with the writing, then I would suggest that the nominator ask the Guild of Copy Editors to copyedit the article, and that this review be put on hold until the copyedit is done, as has been done with other DYK-nominated articles in a similar state. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've asked for copyedit now: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm from the GOCE I believe that this article should be re-evaluated from the grammar/spelling standpoint. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Zppix, do you mean that you have completed a copyedit and didn't see any significant issues? I'm assuming this is true, since your edit summary read "Copyedit (major)", even though only a few very minor changes were made. If so, then I'd like to request that you withdraw and let a more experienced editor take this one. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed all/any errors I saw, I will not withdraw. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * To summarize, it seems to me that a review of a small portion of the article raised grammar and writing concerns, resulting in a correspondingly small number of corrections. I thereby suggest that a general DYK review is the next step. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I interpret 's comment above as a statement that the editor is done copy-editing. The article still needs work. I have commenced a full copy-edit of this article, which has some grammar problems and awkward text. Here's what I've done so far. I should be done within a few hours. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Jonesey95. I was wondering whether, as you go through, you could take a special look at the Norway paragraph, parts of which seem closely paraphrased from this source. Once your copyedit is done, the review here can recommence. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The copy edit is complete. I did not look in detail at the Norway paragraph or the source linked above, but I did some editing on it, so it might be paraphrased enough. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Jonesey95, for the copy editing! I've now made clarifications ad expanded the segment on contraceptives in developing countries. Regarding the population control section, I replaced news articles with more established sources. I had to add some sentences about India since it was also mentioned therein. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added ALT1, since the factor of fertile parents only seems significant in high income countries. Also, it can be more directly related to an image. Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review! I should have those issues fixed by the weekend. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now amended the paraphrasing in the mentioned section:.
 * I've now added to the corresponding section in the article that the association applies both to low- and high income countries: Fertility_factor_(demography). Perhaps this makes the hook enough interesting too? I've also added the image in that article section. Still, I agree that the image is relatively unrelated to the subject at hand, and does not need to be included.
 * I have 4 previous approved DYKs as far as I can remember, and if a working QPQ checker finds another one, let me know too! If this article is approved, I would therefore like to make this my last exception from the QPQ requirement.
 * Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg The hook fact is easily and solidly verifiable by the graph in the Global Monitoring Report 2015/2016 and as it applies to all parts of the world, it will be interesting for all of our readers' origins. I can confirm everything else that you have said in your detailed breakdown of improvements. This is good to go. Good job.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  21:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)