Template talk:Did you know/Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences

Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences
Created by Epipelagic (talk). Self nom at 23:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ... that the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences operates JAGO (pictured), the only manned research submersible in Germany?


 * Reviewed: Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012 --Epipelagic (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed: Hook
 * Length, format, content rules: r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Source:
 * Interest: Hook is not interesting enough. Hooks that are merely definitions (e.g., "Did you know that X is a Y?") are almost never suitable for the main page. Is there anything interesting that can be added? r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Image suitability, if applicable: n/a

Article
 * Length: User:Dr pda/prosesize.js gives only about 1100 characters, but doesn't count the bullet points. Since there is a lot of content there, this meets the length requirement.
 * Vintage: r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sourcing (V, RS, BLP): Symbol delete vote.svg I don't see any independent sources to establish notability. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutrality:
 * Plagiarism/close paraphrasing:

Comments/discussion: All but two references are from the institute's own website, and the other two references are from the website of an aquarium the institute operates. The article needs third-party, independent sources (mainly to establish notability, but also just because that's the only way to be sure there's good, reliable information in the article). I won't go as far as to challenge notability on the article itself yet, because I don't know what the notability standards and guidelines are for research institutes (that is to say, I don't know what sorts of references would be expected to demonstrate that a research institute is notable on Wikipedia), but in any case the article as it is is not suitable for DYK. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've changed the hook. Actually, the article does cite a third party source --Epipelagic (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks like basically a directory entry; I'm not sure how far it goes towards establishing notability. In any case, one independent source out of 20 is not enough; the number of independent sources needs to be increased and the number of non-independent sources needs to be reduced. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I put the icon up in the review template before; just adding one down here to make it clear that I consider this nomination rejected. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The nominator is working on improving referencing and I am willing to re-evaluate this nom. I do believe it can be rescued. Materialscientist (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was already five days old when nominated and it's only getting older. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This does not matter, what matters is when the review was completed, which is less than allotted 7 days. The nominator has asked to reconsider and is trying to address the problem. I believe we must cherish all attempts to collaborate with the DYK reviewer and improve the article as a result of the review. This way we improve and use the reviewer time more efficiently. Materialscientist (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This should be thoroughly sourced now. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)