Template:Did you know nominations/Thea Austin


 * 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 Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Promoted per discussion at WT:DYK

Thea Austin

 * ... that Thea Austin has had five hits as a member of three groups?
 * Comment: I'm really pissed off because I've just noticed that unsourced BLPs can be expanded 2x and still be DYK eligible, thus 417/588 x 2 = <1,500; I've just spent ages expanding it to 3,000 characters, thinking it needed to be expanded 5x. However, I do have one question; when changed the article categories in my userspace draft to links, the character count went from 417 to 588. Would I have needed to have expanded it from 417 characters or from 588 characters?
 * Comment: I'm really pissed off because I've just noticed that unsourced BLPs can be expanded 2x and still be DYK eligible, thus 417/588 x 2 = <1,500; I've just spent ages expanding it to 3,000 characters, thinking it needed to be expanded 5x. However, I do have one question; when changed the article categories in my userspace draft to links, the character count went from 417 to 588. Would I have needed to have expanded it from 417 characters or from 588 characters?

5x expanded by Launchballer (talk) and GoingBatty (talk). Self nominated at 13:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC).
 * When BattyBot edited your userspace draft in, it added only five characters to the page. Could you please let me know where you're seeing an increase from 417 to 588 characters?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just completed some manual fixes to the article. GoingBatty (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * By using DYK check as linked to in the toolbox on the right, it thinks the links made out of the categories was an increase in prose. Thanks for adding a reflist to the article - how did I forget to add that?-- Laun  chba  ller  14:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg New enough (for 10 June) and long enough. (Note: I have replaced a full stop (period in US) with a comma in the text.) The hook is acceptable and short enough, and checks out online with citation #1. The text is objective and neutral, and fully cited. No problems with disambig links or with access to external links. Issues: (1) @ Launchballer. You have listed this as a self-nom but you have not done a QPQ. Because it's only a half-self-nom, IMO you are probably only half-obliged to do a QPQ. I can donate one of my many QPQs to speed up this nom if you like. So please would you kindly either do a QPQ or accept a donated one. (2) Re possible copyvio or close paraphrasing, the following duplications were found: "as a staff writer with the industry trade publication the r b report (citation #1)""and three days later she was on a plane (citation #2)" Summary: when issues 1 and 2 are resolved, this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Launchballer has asked me to copy the following comment from his talkpage into this nom template. (Note: when I copied and pasted it, I think the time signature glitched.) --Storye book (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * :: Please see |#Blocked. I will deal with the close paraphrasing when my block expires (ironically on 4 July). As for my QPQ, I am very happy to accept a donated QPQ. In the meantime, I have a policy that I archive my talk page every 100 sections and this is section 100. Therefore, could you please move this talk page to User talk:Launchballer/archive/2014/401-500, copy this comment to the DYK nomination, reply if necessary there and wait! :)-- Laun  chba  ller  23:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Launchballer. I have done as you asked. Re the blocking: next time you think an edit war is about to start, I recommend telling a friendly admin immediately, and letting them deal with it. It's worked so far for me. Meanwhile, you are welcome to a donated QPQ. Please ping me when you have dealt with the close paraphrasing. And enjoy your wikibreak - sometimes the contents of the freezer and a bunch of DVDs can be way more interesting than what's going on in the DYK noms. --Storye book (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted, I think voluntary WP:1RR is best for me. I've fixed the two close paraphrasings identified.-- Laun  chba  ller  08:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you, Launchballer, good to see you back. All issues resolved. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Promotion reverted, the claim is not sourced by an inline reference from a reliable source per the DYK rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Sadly, no source aggregates all three bits of data. Therefore:
 * ALT1: ... that Thea Austin had hits as part of Snap!, Soulsearcher and Pusaka? -- Laun  chba  ller  21:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking purely objectively, I'm not sure what "had hits" really means not having any context for who Thea Austin is. Just free styling, something like "that African American singer Thea Austin had top-forty hits with Snap!....."  Thanks for trying to rework the hook though, much appreciated.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that five songs sung by Thea Austin charted in the top forty of singles charts? (The discography is sufficient sourcing per WP:CALC, though it isn't formatted too well - could you have a look at it.)-- Laun  chba  ller  09:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, The Rambling Man and User:Launchballer. I've read your discussion and as far as I can see the problem is with the use of sites such as Allmusic as a source. Even though Allmusic is a company source which is talking about its own product, this is basic information presented in an objective way without hype, and IMO there is no reason to disbelieve it. WP rules are fine in general terms, but I think there are times when a site which is technically a primary source is valid as a citation for a hook. I cannot imagine any reader objecting to it, unless there were a current law-case accusing this company of lying about its hits - and I am not aware of such a case. Regarding using the discography as a source as per WP:CALC, that idea is acceptable to me, but it must be remembered that if you follow the link for Rhythm is a Dancer back through its WP article, you come back to the same Allmusic site as a source. I have only checked the source for Rhythm is a Dancer in your Discography table, Launchballer, and I would like it confirmed that I have tracked it back to the correct source. So please could you kindly attach the relevant citations next to the five things in the chart which back up the hook? I have seen other hooks checking out OK via this type of chart, but the relevant items (or the whole chart) are always referenced. Summary: (1) Sourcing by calc is fine if the chart(s) (or relevant bits of chart) is/are referenced. (2) I think sites like Allmusic are OK for chart positions/dates where it's not part of advertising or hype. If this is the problem here, I'd like to see a consensus on it. If it is not the problem, could we please get this clarified? Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have sourced the chart positions. As for AllMusic, the following is copied from User:Michig/How to find sources for popular music articles: "Allmusic is a valid reliable source. Contrary to what some editors believe, the site is not a blog, is not user-editable, the biographies are not submitted by the bands themselves or their record companies, and it does not aim to write about every artist that ever existed. Many of the writers for Allmusic are respected and experienced authors, some having written several published books (e.g. Dave Thompson). Check for reviews as well as biographies - several artists have no biography but have considerable biographical information included in reviews."


 * -- Laun  chba  ller  19:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

To clarify the reason I pulled it, please see current DYK rule 3b: "The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source, since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it, since the fact is an extraordinary claim; citing the hook fact at the end of the paragraph is not acceptable." (emphasis mine). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So what is the procedure for synthesis hooks? Using five references right next to each other?-- Laun  chba  ller  20:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I imagine your solution would be a good starting point.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added them.-- Laun  chba  ller  21:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thank you, The Rambling Man and Launchballer. All issues resolved. Good to go with ALT2, which is mentioned in the header with inline citations, is referenced in the chart, and which checks out online with citations #1-4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storye book (talk • contribs) 08:46, 7 July 2014‎ (UTC)
 * I just received a notification about this nomination. What is going on with it?-- Laun  chba  ller  19:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)