Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth A. Parmelee

Ruth A. Parmelee

 * ... that physician and relief worker Ruth A. Parmelee (pictured) reported during the Armenian genocide that thousands of people "drop dead from hunger, thirst, and fatigue"?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tiruchirappalli Railway Division ‎

Created by Proudbolsahye (talk). Self nominated at 08:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC).


 * 16px NOT YET - Fails on two of the seven relevant criteria. (SEE BELOW) Passes: (1) Hook is interesting, within length guidelines, and appears neutral. (2) Article is new enough (started 27DEC13). (3) Article is long enough. (4) Image is relevant, public domain, and free use. HOWEVER: FAIL: QPQ was attempted but done poorly, and nominator's "good to go" approval was rescinded because the QPQ-reviewed article was identified as poorly sourced before proceeding from the prep area, FAIL: While this hook is allegedly sourced, the citation needs a page number since I am unable to  hunt and peck to find the quoted seven words in a book not available for preview on Google Books since no page number was provided by the nominator. I cannot check if there are copyvio/close paraphrasing because the source is not available to be reviewed and compared. Cannot assume good faith in its current form. source is good, see below.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nominator notified of these problems. .--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. You know I actually don't have the page handy right now. I had someone take pictures of the pages at a library (See picture here). Unfortunately, his fingers are covering the page number. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Since the X icon should only be used for nominations that are pretty much unfixable (or only with herculean effort), I'm using a less alarming icon to prevent this from being rejected out of hand: fixing source citations and doing QPQs are can easily be rectified by the nominator once informed of the issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have the page. It's page number 24. I will add it to the article asap. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The source is good. However, the article you started to QPQ is being fixed by others...you've pretty much abandoned that one. What do you think about the nominator's lack of continued work with QPQ after problems were discovered and it was pulled, ?--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is being reviewed by others. Though I may have passed the article, it seems as though others have objected. Nevertheless, I did review the article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I can't on this one...it was pulled in prep (meaning it was one step away from being put on the main page in an unready state), and days later, other editors have had to make an effort to get it back on track. a shoddy QPQ shouldn't count as QPQ any more than bringing donuts for the break room at a brain surgery does anything to save the patient. I'd ask you to do another QPQ, but I'll wait for BlueMoonset's opinion on it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed that Proudbolsahye didn't check originally to be sure that the article was sourced to the rule of thumb mentioned there, since I'm pretty sure this was an issue in some of her early submissions that she had to fix herself. This is a standard DYK criterion that should be checked. We haven't typically made people do a new review if the old one turns out to have been problematic, but lately there seems to be more of a move to do so. Since the nomination needs a reviewer right now, there's no reason that the QPQ review can't be properly completed by doing a more comprehensive review than was originally done. This means checking to be sure all paragraphs have at least one source, that there is no close paraphrasing, that it's neutral, and that the text makes sense. (To my eye, there are issues in the first paragraph of the History section; in particular, the use of "zone" in the penultimate sentence has no antecedent, and since this is the sentence that the hook depends on, it needs to be crystal clear. The final sentence with its "this could be the only division in the world" is odd: why "could be"? If it isn't known, why is it mentioned here at all?)
 * Note to you both: pings don't work in Template space, nor do links to user pages. (It's why this didn't show up for me when ColonelHenry pinged me on the 31st.) Unfortunately, you have to notify someone directly if they don't notice the page in their watchlist, as Proudbolsahye just did on my talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I finished the QPQ review. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

- GOOD TO GO -- I added "during the Armenian genocide" and removed "once" to the hook just for clarification on what she's talking about. Nominating editor has resolved the issues raised regarding the source and is currently involved in completing the QPQ (and I assume good faith that he'll finish it).--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)