Template:Did you know nominations/ThePsychoExWife.com


 * 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 Allen3 talk 13:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

ThePsychoExWife.com

 * Symbol question.svg ... that The Psycho Ex-Wife, an anonymous blog critical of American divorce law and the family court system, was shut down by a U.S. family court judge?

Created/expanded by 72.74.207.196 (talk). Nominated by 72.74.206.122 (talk) at 01:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Article has an orphan tagged that needs to be addressed by linking from other articles within the encyclopedia and then removed. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Is that really necessary for a DYK nomination? 72.74.214.237 (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've deorphaned the article. Now it's time for a review. --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg - As an aside: the hook was nominated and created by an IP. DYK requires autoconfirmed status to nominate articles to DYK. EagerToddler39 (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg EagerToddler, that's not a DYK rule; it's just an artifact of the setup of Wikipedia. The fact is that the interface does not allow non-autoconfirmed users to create new template pages, so they are physically prevented from submitting DYK noms according to the normal procedure. There never has been an intent to block them from participating in DYK. Ideally, an IP user like this one would register and become autoconfirmed. Failing that, they are encouraged to post their proposals for noms (including proposed hooks, image file names, etc.) at WT:DYK and request that someone else create the nom on their behalf. --Orlady (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have not done a complete review yet, but I find that the article has some policy issues: non-neutral POV and original research. Its content and tone are skewed to the perspective of the website owners, in opposition to the "ex-wife". (For example, I see adoption of the website's perspective in statements like post ... clarified that, despite the website's provocative name, ThePsychoExWife.com was intended for both divorced men and women and Weaver-Ostinato explained, the blog voiced genuine concerns, particularly in the use of words like "clarified" and "explained" and "genuine".) The original research is in the form of statements like Morelli's case had nearly universal support from First Amendment legal experts and The response from the blogosphere was mixed and understandably divided along gender lines, which seem to represent a Wikipedia contributor's evaluations -- not someone else's published evaluations. --Orlady (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking over the article. I tried to keep it in as neutral a tone as possible but I don't have a problem if certain statements need to be reworded. 72.74.217.22 (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've made a few changes. Do you think I'd be better off removing the two quotes in the "History" section? Please let me know if there's anything else I've missed. Thanks. 72.74.217.22 (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've finally gotten back to this article and DYK nomination. I trimmed the first quote in the History section and made some other edits to make this more like a standard encyclopedia article. I think the current version of the article is sufficiently balanced. Now my only concern is with the hook. I don't find that the article substantiates the statement that the blog was "critical of American divorce law and the family court system". The article does indicate that the blog presented complaints about family court, but it's not clear that it was broadly critical of divorce law in general, nor of the entire system. I can approve a shortened version of the hook:
 * Symbol confirmed.svg *ALT1: ... that The Psycho Ex-Wife, an anonymous blog, was shut down by a U.S. family court judge? --Orlady (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)