Template:Did you know nominations/McGruff the Crime Dog


 * 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 Montanabw (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

McGruff the Crime Dog

 * ... that a year after McGruff the Crime Dog told citizens to lock their doors, more people got a dog but there was no increase in people locking their doors?


 * Reviewed: Jarrahids
 * Comment: Expansion began on 5 June in my sandbox but was moved to mainspace on 7 June.

5x expanded by Wugapodes (talk). Self-nominated at 22:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Ummm...do you have any other hooks?  This one just begs the question, "How does anyone know how many millions locked their doors before, or after, McGruff's warnings?" I have my doubts anything like that could be quantified among the general public. — Maile  (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The information is from a 1985 study by Garret O'Keefe of the University of Denver published in the journal Society (paywall). It's based upon panel surveys of 426 adults across three cities conducted twice, once in 1979 and again in 1981 before and after the campaign. If you'd like I can email you the study, but I find the methodology to be rather sound. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 00:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt what you say about the source. However, think about it.  McGruff (I remember him well) showed up on TV multiple times a day, being seen across the United States by hundreds of millions of people over several decades.  And the source is based on 426 adults over a 2-year period? That's why I don't think it can be quantified.  If you like, you can leave that hook up there and see if anyone else thinks it's OK.  But on that specific statement, I don't believe 426 adults is well representative of hundreds of millions. I would have my doubts even if it limited the statement to a specific city of people not locking their doors.  426 respondents is way too low. — Maile  (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your objection, and I think it comes down to a difference in our belief in statistics. 426 adults is a rather representative sample (though as I understand it it was 426 adults at each phase, for a total of about 800). If you look at nationwide polling for the 2016 US Presidential election, the sample size for any given poll is around 1000 people and those are generally agreed to be representative of 300 million people. Even a poll of 800 people (IBD/TIPP) has a margin of error of only 3.3 points which is rather good. I would very much agree with you if this were an internet poll or one published in a newspaper, but it was funded by the Department of Justice and subjected to peer review by experts in the field, so I'm willing to take its methodology and results as representative. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 01:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that we simply see this from two different aspects. That having been said, I'm going to move out of the way and let a reviewer take over. I don't want to hold up this nomination. Good luck with this. — Maile  (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Complete review needed. — Maile (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg This article is a fivefold expansion and is new enough and long enough. I note the above discussion on the numbers of people taking part in the survey, but the authors of the study obviously thought it a valid sample and I'm OK with that. The hook facts have inline citations, the article is neutral and I detected no policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hook is sourced and study is valid, but my concern is that the hook misrepresents the study, which found that six of seven parameters -- other than locking doors -- WERE improved. The not-locking doors result was possibly due to a plateau effect as 75% of the population already did so. I therefore propose an ALT1 and and  to OK (or not) my proposal. Montanabw (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC):
 * ALT1: ... that a year after McGruff the Crime Dog asked people to lock their doors, dog ownership increased, but possibly due to a plateau effect, there was no increase in people locking their doors?
 * ALT1b: ... that a year after McGruff the Crime Dog asked people to lock their doors, dog ownership increased but there was no increase in people locking their doors,  possibly due to a plateau effect?
 * Symbol voting keep.svg ALT1 seems good to me, or you might prefer ALT1b. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer ALT1b, but I'll leave it up to the closer (and others) as to which they find more hook-y. Thanks everyone for the improvements and eyes, and sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 06:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Promoter's note: I'll take 1b, as it wasn't mine!  Montanabw (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)