- 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: rejected by Zanhe (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Allen Shoup edit
Allen Shoup
- ... that Allen Shoup (pictured) is recognized as the "strategist behind the great growth of Chateau Ste. Michelle through the 1980s and 1990s ....?
- ALT1:... that under Allen Shoup’s (pictured) leadership, Stimson Lane "grew from a prominent local winery to one of the top 10 premium wines in the nation" ....?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Een Bloemhof
Created by Bellevuewinegal (talk). Nominated by Donnie Park (talk) at 02:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- The tone of the article is not appropriate to an encyclopaedia; it makes excessive use of quotations, which are cherry-picked to present the subject and his businesses in a good light. Much of it reads like a press release, and I've tagged the page as such. There is also at least the possibility of a conflict of interest problem at the page. - Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - Earwig's tool identifies a few phrases lifted from sfgate; these can easily be removed
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
- Interesting: - both hooks are overtly promotional in tone; Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind
- Other problems: - both hooks contain direct quotations; these would have to have to be properly cited and attributed on the main page as anywhere else. Is that possible?
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
I'm sorry, but I see severe problems with the article, and thus with the nomination too – though of course I accept that the nomination was made entirely in good faith. Please feel free to ask for a second opinion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Since the article creator is nowhere to be seen for a week, I've requested the article to be copyedited, so until then let's see how this goes. Donnie Park (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Donnie Park, I think it needs to be completely rewritten, not copyedited; but as you say, let's see how it goes. I'm sorry that this has not gone well for you. I simply can't understand why we allow COI editing in draft space – this sort of thing is the inevitable result. Taking a cynical view, is it surprising that the article creator is not around? She's done her job, perhaps collected a fee for it, moved on to the next thing. In case you hadn't noticed: Bellevue, Washington is where Shoup is from. I'm still completely willing to to look at this again if we have an acceptably neutral article and a different hook. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Justlettersandnumbers. This article suffers from serious COI, promotional language, and notability issues. The AfC was rejected by the first reviewer, whose decision was probably correct. -Zanhe (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- JustlettersandnumbersZanhe The next question is how was this allowed to pass WP:AfC, when the same group declined Draft:Nic Case? Because of this nomination, I feel I made a fool out of myself. Also since I want to retract the nomination, can I use the review to be redeemed for a future nomination since I have some more articles to nominate this year. Donnie Park (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Donnie Park, I said above and will repeat here: I believe that your nomination was made entirely in good faith. If it has turned out to have been a not-so-great idea, that doesn't make a fool of you. We all make mistakes, and perhaps can learn from them. I also believe that the article was created in good faith; I don't personally think it should have been accepted, but I don't see any value in going over that ground now. I'm afraid I don't know if you can recycle your QPQ, I hope that some more experienced reviewer will answer that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Donnie Park: There was a recent discussion on WT:DYK about whether a QPQ for a failed nomination could be reused, and I think most people answered yes. Search the archives for details. -Zanhe (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Found the link: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119#Is it allowed to reuse reviews for QPQs if a nomination has been (correctly) rejected?. -Zanhe (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Zanhe: Thanks but the next part is, can I continue to review articles to build up QPQ for future articles considering I have over 20/30 planned this year? Thanks in advance. Donnie Park (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Donnie Park: Yes that's also been discussed before. You can certainly save up QPQ credits for future use. -Zanhe (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Found the link: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 119#Is it allowed to reuse reviews for QPQs if a nomination has been (correctly) rejected?. -Zanhe (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)