Template:Did you know nominations/Science Moms


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Science Moms

 * ... that the goal of the Science Moms documentary is to fight the anti-GMO, anti-vax, pro-alternative medicine culture affecting parents? Source: "Producer/director Newell has said: 'The goal of the movie is to provide a counter-narrative to the anti-GMO, anti-vax, pro-alternative medicine culture that has popped up in the world of parenting.'" From: https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/addressing_the_fear-based_narrative_around_gmos_with_natalie_newell
 * ALT1: ... that the Science Moms documentary owes its existence to a group of pro-science mothers who challenged anti-GMO celebrity mothers with an open-letter? Source: "As was described in a May 19, 2017, article in Paste magazine, a group of bloggers wrote an open letter to several celebrity moms in 2015, criticizing their anti-GMO stance, and explaining the safety and benefits of GMOs... This letter caught the attention of Natalie Newell... this chain of events resulted in the production of Science Moms." From: http://groundedparents.com/2015/08/19/scientist-and-advocate-moms-to-celeb-on-gmo-food/ AND https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/05/science-moms-gmo.html
 * ALT2: ... what is the goal of the Science Moms documentary?


 * ALT3: ... that the goal of the Science Moms documentary is to fight the anti-science culture affecting parents?

Created by Rp2006 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC).




 * Comment - the ALT1 wording relies heavily on a non-independent source; the groundedparents.com article is written by Kavin Senapathy who is featured in the documentary. Given this sourcing, this wording should not be used. Dialectric (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I like my first hook better, but I have to disagree about ALT1. That info is also sourced to an article from an independent source: Pastemagazine.com. RobP (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - the hook and the ALT1 are too long in my opinion, so I've suggested ALT2. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg No problems with the article, ready for DYK. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Oh no - please don't use ALT2.. "Do you know what is the goal of..." is not even grammatically correct! Also the original hook is within character limit, so what is the problem? If the original MUST be shortened, I suggest: ALT3 RobP (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - don't use ALT2 - flawed grammar and does not give any indication of what the linked subject is. I still don't think this article should be in dyk at all as it has ongoing notability issues discussed on the article talk page, but if others support the inclusion, ALT3 is the least-bad option.  Dialectric (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed. The review should explicitly confirm that the five main DYK criteria have been met. Yoninah (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As the article's primary author (and DYK nominator) I want to point out that five main DYK criteria have all been met in the opinion of the original DYK reviewer. The issue bringing this into a re-review are the recent complaints by an editor (using at least two IDs to comment for some reason) who, in my opinion, is being overly critical on the subjects of RS and Notability. As far as I can tell, Notability is only referenced in the 4th criteria section Within policy, which links to Verifiability. In that article the Notability sub-section says only "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Note that it does not say if 3, or if 4, or even if 5 cannot be found... It gives no number, implying just one is enough to pass a DYK review. (That seems odd to me, but that IS what it says.) In any case, I believe that the article has sufficient, reliable third-party sources to pass Notability, and thus should have been approved for DYK. RobP (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * which review are you referring to? No problems with the article, ready for DYK.? This is not a review. Yoninah (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh? Sorry. Then what was that comment made in regards to? Based on that ((it seemed to me) the article was promoted to the DYK approved page. 192.91.173.36 (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Yes, the bot promoted it because the approval tick was there. But this nomination needs a full review. (It will stay on the Approved page until it's approved [again] and then promoted to a prep set.) I'm striking ALT2. New reviewer needed. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. I understand. Thanks! Especially for striking that horrible ALT 2. RobP (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Article was nominated two days after creation, and it meets the size requirements. This is the creator/nominator's third nomination so no QPQ is necessary. The article's images are either freely licensed or have an appropriate fair-use rationale. Article is neutral and includes viewpoints about the documentary. Article is adequately referenced. However, the article feels incomplete when it comes to reception: the article only cites one review, from Sciencebasedmedicine.org. Are there any reviews about the documentary from professional film reviews? And are there any other reviews for the documentary out there? In addition, some phrases in the article need to be revised: Natalie Newell should probably be referred to by her full name in her first mention at the "Inception and production" section. The colon is "Featured in the film are:" is probably unnecessary. "Science Moms was debuted" should probably read either "Science Moms debuted" or "Science Moms premiered". "Science Moms is a 2017 American documentary film about moms" should probably read "Science Moms is a 2017 American documentary film about mothers" since "mom" is an informal term. "The film is available for download from its website" should probably be "The film is available for download on its website". The article is promising, but it still needs additional work before it can be approved; the issues are not insurmountable, though, and the film has received coverage in reliable sources, so it's notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and suggestions. I have made the recommended changes. RobP (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just one more issue: shouldn't "GMO's" be "GMOs"? Once this is resolved this will be approved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right you are. Fixed. RobP (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And with that, Symbol confirmed.svg Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)