Template:Did you know nominations/Political Parties (book)


 * 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) 21:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Political Parties (book)

 * ... that the 1911 book Political Parties remains a classic of the social sciences?
 * Reviewed: Hörningsholm Castle
 * Comment: ALT1: ... that the 1911 book Political Parties introduced the iron law of oligarchy?

5x expanded by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 13:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC).

EEng (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * CE'd the hooks and...
 * ALT2 ... that the 1911 book Political Parties, which introduced the iron law of oligarchy, remains a classic of the social sciences?

I agree that ALT2 is the hook to go with, and hook length and sourcing are okay. Article length is okay. Expansion is from 1006 B (155 words) readable prose size to 5038 B (766 words), good enough for 5x. Expansion dates versus DYK filing time is okay. Article neutrality is okay. I don't see any copyvio issues.

However, I have a few qualms about other things in the article:
 * Almost everything is sourced to Lipset. If this book is that influential, there should be other sources you can add into the mix.  In particular, why aren't either of the "Further reading" sources used?
 * Separate "Criticism" sections usually aren't a good idea, and especially not when they contain only one sentence. This and any other criticisms should be merged into the "Significance" section - in particular, again, those alluded to by the "For a powerful critique of Michels see ..." remark in "Further reading".
 * The one-entry "Quotes" section seems superfluous to me. There are already a number of quotes in the article, and the particular importance of this one is not apparent.
 * The "proletariat against bourgeoisie" quote is mysterious - who says it? - and contains links, recommended against by WP:LINKSTYLE. I think you should just paraphrase it.
 * The redundant book cites in the References are surprising. Why not use long form/short form?
 * And all those cites are misleading - they read as though Michels and Lipset were co-authors. You need to make clear the book is by Michels, the introduction is by Lipset, and you are using that introduction as your source.  You also need to make clear what year this edition is from that has the Lipset introduction.

These issues should be addressed before the article goes up on the Main Page. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your points. They all have merit, and I'll consider them if I ever want to take this article to a GA level. However, most of them are not relevant for the DYK criteria; this article is a start class, and those type of MoS issues are acceptable. I did fix up the citation template since you are right it was somewhat misleading; however as far as I know Template:Cite book simply does not support a way to indicate that we are citing an introduction author. I.e. I can and did specify we are citing the introduction, but I don't think there's a way to be clear that it has only one author. I cannot classify Michels as an editor, nor remove him from the citation entirely; if you know how to modify the template please let me know. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see you are a Wikicup contestant. My bad, I should have checked first.  I'm of a different philosophical bent – I figure if something is going up on the main page it should be as good as it can be.  But the "What DYK is not" part of the criteria is on your side.  Anyway, take a look at Template talk:Cite book/Archive 7 for a suggestion on how to deal with the Introduction problem.  I agree that the template should be revised to explicitly support this ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not an active WikiCup contestant. I hear what you say about the main page, but the consensus on the DYK standards is what it is. Years ago I shifted from working on few good articles (FA-level) to DYK-GA level more of a mass production; in the end I think few dozens DYK/GA articles are better for the general public then one perfect FA. Thanks for the pointer, but I don't think it's a good solution - it will malform metadata for other fields, wouldn't it? Still, if you think it's better, can you format one cite for example? I can wikied update them all easily once I see your edit in practice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I changed one of them (footnote 3). It's not ideal, in that it's not clear whether the book or the introduction is being cited, but at least it makes clear who wrote what.  If you were doing long form/short form then the individual cites wouldn't even need a template – Lipset, "Introduction", p. 15, in Michels, Political Parties. – and everything would be clear.    Wasted Time R (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I see. Good idea. Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Okay, I've made a few direct changes myself for MoS conformance and internal consistency and to give the early translation history. We are good to go, using ALT2 hook.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)