Template:Did you know nominations/List of national quality awards


 * 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

List of national quality awards

 * ... that Japan's Deming Prize became the first global quality award (example pictured) in 1984?
 * ALT1: ... that the national quality award phenomenon (example pictured) grew out of the Total Quality Management movement of the 1980s?
 * Comment: Self nomination
 * Comment: Self nomination

Created by DanielPenfield (talk). Self nominated at 06:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Suggested hook does not appear to be backed by provided source - source does say that award is an example of an "international" award, but says nothing about it being the first such award (or the only example, as our article claims). Otherwise article looks OK (long enough, new enough, no obvious copyright/policy problems). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought it was obvious from the list—in terms of national quality awards, the Deming Prize was the only game in town from 1951–1983. In 1984, the Canadians instituted their national quality award at which point there were only two such awards in the world.  In 1988, the Americans and Australians joined in.  Besides, if there were more than global quality award, one would have heard about it by now.  You seem to be correct, however, in pointing out that no source that you can find in Google Books that wants to go out on a limb and state the obvious despite the fact that in 1984, there were exactly two national quality awards and for sure, the Canadian one wasn't open to organizations outside Canada.As for the term "", it's problematic because it could mean simply "open to more than one nation" whereas the meaning we really want is "open to all nations" which "global" unambiguously indicates.  The EFQM Excellence Award is open to more than one nation but is not open to all nations, for example. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Self-evident is probably fine for the article, but DYK rules are pretty strict in that the act must be directly supported by an inline citation. Perhaps it is best to pick a new hook. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Replaced per your suggestion—I had expected that this entry had aged out already, but apparently there's still a ray of hope. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Review for ALT1: New enough (for 5 May). Prose section is long enough. ALT1 checks out with online citation #6. Hook image is free. Self-nominator DanielPenfield has not achieved any previous DYKs (as far as I can see), so does not need to do a QPQ. No problem with disambig links. Issues: (1) Citation #17 external link is dead. (2) The long quotations in citations #1, #3 and #6 are unnecessary  and need to be deleted because they are plagiaristic. I f the nominator (or anyone else) can resolve the 2 issues, this nom will be good to go. --Storye book (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. As for the issues:
 * While the website http://www.indonesianqualityaward.org/ may have been down when you viewed it at 16:47 on June 2, it's back up as of this writing and the cached version indicates it was alive on May 30.  It certainly was alive on May 5.  No action taken.
 * "need to be deleted because they are plagiaristic" Wow.  I don't know what to say here other than I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the quote parameter from the Citation template.  The quotes are embedded in the citations for Verifiability as certain disputatious editors love to use Failed verification or summarily delete content if they don't see exactly the same words in the source as they do in the article.  And the authors of original sources often love to use as many words as possible to convey a single, relatively simple idea.  Finally, all quotes meet all of the criteria for fair use.  No action taken.  -- DanielPenfield (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I came here from a note left at Template talk:Citation. I agree with Penfield: these are properly attributed quotes, of an appropriate length, and are in no way plagiarism. Plagiarism is when one uses someone else's words as if they were your own, without letting readers know where the words actually came from. Nothing like that is happening here and the use of these quotes in the sources for this article is not in any way a problem. (However, for DYK purposes they don't count towards the length of prose in the article.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I have no opinion (or sight into) the review here in question. However, a quote, especially attributed as in a citation, is never plagarism. Are you sure what you mean? The only issue here could be copyright, but fair use easily allows several sentences, even pages at times, so why one would put that volume into a citation I don't know. And then the issue could just as will be the citation volume for our purposes. I think the comment above needs clarification. Evensteven (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Re (1): The deadlink in citation #17 is now working. Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re (2): Yes I stand corrected - "plagiarism" was the wrong word to use, and please accept my apology. It is true that I had spent two long days helping to lessen the DYK nom backlog, including background research on some issues, and there's no doubt that by 5.47pm UK time I was exhausted (I start my days early). The use of that word makes no sense to me in hindsight. I meant, and should have said, that such long quotations from copyrighted sources are unnecessary in citations and could attract complaints if the article were exposed on the WP front page, and I still think that that is the case.--Storye book (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the quotes in citations 1, 3, and 6. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Excellent, thank you: all above issues resolved. Peace and love! Good to go.--Storye book (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)