Template:Did you know nominations/Marten Woudstra


 * 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 Yoninah (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Marten Woudstra

 * ... that Marten Woudstra was the first person from Westminster Theological Seminary to be conferred the Doctor of Theology degree?
 * ALT 1 ... that Marten Woudstra was one of four men who formed the committee that eventually produced the New International Version of the Bible?
 * ALT 2 (edited) ... that Marten Woudstra was the only member of the original committee of scholars appointed in 1957 who continued to serve until the complete publication of the New International Version in 1978?
 * ALT 3 ... that Marten Woudstra was one of only two members the original committee of scholars appointed in 1957 who lived to see the launching in 1965 of translation project that produced the New International Version of the Bible?

Created by Ἀλήθεια (talk). Self nominated at 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. — Maile  (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation 5 needs a page number, otherwise this is ready to go. Gamaliel ( talk ) 17:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Ἀλήθεια 18:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Both hooks are cited and confirmed by me. QPQ check is down, so assuming you have less than 5 prior submissions to DYK, this is ready for the front page. If you have more than 5 previous DYK submissions, you will have to review another submission. Gamaliel ( talk ) 18:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg It might just be me, but do cites 2 and 4 work for you? The etsjets?  They don't work for me.  Some of the language seems a bit promotional as well.  I'm going to tweak it.--v/r - TP 20:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weird. The urls work fine for me.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * they work also for me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Man gets degree" is, I'm afraid WP:ROUTINE and completely WP:UNINTERESTING. The subject seems to be minorly notable in an area (theology) that is an attempt to study something that, by definition, cannot be proven to exist, and therefore lacks academic rigour.CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The hook isn't the most exciting thing ever, true. Suggestions for better hooks are welcome.  The rest of your objection is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Whatever our personal feelings about the particular field of study, it has long been recognized by academia, accrediting bodies, etc. as a valid academic field.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was originally thinking alt 1 wasn't too bad but "...one of four men who formed the committee that eventually..." makes him too far removed from anything interesting. Why not "one of four men who formed the committee that eventually produced the" or is that not true? CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A good point. Perhaps User:Ἀλήθεια could clarify this point, and perhaps expand the article with a sentence or two fleshing out Woudstra's role in the NIV, which appears to be a key part of his notability.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There were four men on the original committee appointed in the late 1950s to study the question "should we have an updated translation of the Bible in the English language that regular people speak?" Woudstra remained on the committee of 15 that was commissioned in 1965 to actually produce said translation. I haven't found any indication that he was never not on the committee, but nothing explicitly says "until the day he died." However, he was widely known for being the chair of the Old Testament committee, which is obviously a sub-committee of the Committee for Bible Translation. Ἀλήθεια 19:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If we wish to use ALT2 or ALT3, the facts in those statements need to be explicitly stated in the article and cited. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The article now explicitly states ALT3, as does the source. However, the source doesn't explicitly state that Wyngaarden died prior to the final publication of the complete NIV (you have to infer that from the dates available). It does, however, state that Wyngaarden was replaced on the committee early on and did not serve on the permanent committee. This DYK being about Woudstra, I'm not sure how to frame a hook around these facts. "Woudstra was instrumental in the production of the NIV from its initial inception until its final publication" is the general idea. Ἀλήθεια 13:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that ALT3, at 221 characters, is over the limit of 200. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  22:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed ALT2 so that it is (almost) explicitly stated in the article, AND less than 200 characters. By almost, I mean this: the article says (A) four men formed the committee, (B) two men died prior to the translation project launching, (C) one man was replaced in 1962, (D) Woudstra served until the completion. So while the word "only" isn't technically explicitly mentioned, every fact leading you to understand it is. Good enough? Ἀλήθεια 21:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear - four hooks at the top, followed by reviews/comments on them which may or may not be still valid because people have been tweaking at least one of the said hooks since the reviews/comments were made. Please, people, kindly don't tweak content, length or meaning of existing hooks - simply add more ALTs below, in date order with comments. (I'm not saying don't tweak bold, linking, "pictured" etc). So to be on the safe side, I'll start again with a new review, even though the review above may still be valid (sorry User:Gamaliel; your QPQ still stands though).--Storye book (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Review for ALT1. I am reviewing ALT1 because the consensus of the above discussion appears to be that the original hook is too dull, and ALTs 2 and 3 are not easy to prove. ALT1, however, checks out online with citation #5, and credits Woudstra with a notable achievement. New enough (for 16 May) and long enough. According to self-nom's talk page, no previous DYKs have been achieved, so no QPQ required. No problems found with disambig links or with external links. The article is objectively written in a neutral manner. External links checked and no copyvio found in article. Good to go.--Storye book (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't apologize, I'd unfortunately forgotten about this review entirely due to an out of town trip, and I neglected to return to it upon my return to home and to Wikipedia. Since there's been some objections and drama regarding this review, it's also good to have another set of eyes on it.  Thank you.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks, Gamaliel. To admin: it's still GTG. --Storye book (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)