Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Disability in China

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is that the nomination does not meet the DYK criteria

DYK toolbox

Disability in China edit

(
)
  • Comment: There are around 83 million people in China with disabilities and 80 million is the estimated total population of Germany. This is also my first time nominating an article.

Created by Appleangel11 (talk). Self nominated at 03:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC).

  • Before anyone says anything, this would be WP:SYNTH / WP:OR in an article, but in a hook I think it's fine. EEng (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The proposal is not useable as a hook under the current rules, which are as idiotic as valid. Strike. It would work if we changed to "aspect" and !"navigation" as suggested. I would agree to do so, but ask you to support the generic rule change as proposed. The article is new and long enouigh, saw no copyvio. Find another hook and go. Serten (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • insufficient reason given for rejecting the hook. I have removed the strikethrough. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@EEng How is synthesis in this particular hook fine? My objection is that the hook is not directly cited. There should be a reference for the approximate number of people with disabilities in China (which has been done) and the estimated population of Germany (which isn't exactly relevant to this subject). Unless someone happens to find a source that contains both, I don't see how this goes through. Fuebaey (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:OR allows for simple arithmetic and comparing one quantity to another, so that's not the problem here. The problem, if there is any, is that normally just grabbing two otherwise unrelated numbers and comparing them, to make some kind of point (not made in a RS) can lead to POV SYNTH and other no-nos. Here, it's just being used to give the reader an idea of scale, and though I find that kind of thing hokey in an article (especially the ubiquitous comparison to football fields -- "A warehouse as big as FIVE FOOTBALL FIELDS") I think it's OK in a hook. It's not a POV problem because no "point" is being made. EEng (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It implies there are currently more disabled people in China than there are people in Germany and assumes that the statistics haven't changed since they were taken. Not that I'm suggesting anything against the nominator, but why should an extrapolated survey sampling of disabled population made in 2006 [1] be compared against a census for general population made in 2011 [2]? Surely, considering the two statistical methods are quite different (and made five years apart), it would be misleading to state this as factual. Scale is one thing but, like your football warehouse analogy, if both aren't properly defined it won't read well. Fuebaey (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I have (ahem) a degree in statistics so excuse me a moment while I don my white lab coat. <minutes later> I am now clothed in the Raiment of Authority. Where were we? Oh yes. Well, just because the two numbers were derived in those two different ways doesn't mean it's not appropriate to compare them this way -- it is. If you were trying to make a confidence statement about the likelihood that one number was larger than the other, then you'd have to bring in the uncertainties attendant on each of them.
Now doffing my Raiment of Authority and returning to my usual role as a normal Wikipedia editor, I agree it doesn't necessarily excite the imagination -- frankly, knowing how huge China is, the Germany comparison doesn't give the impression of a large subpopulation. EEng (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • New review requested. Fuebaey (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments Just browsing past and saw this. It seems completely arbitrary to compare total people in Germany with the sick people in China. Is there really nothing specific about this article topic to provide an interesting hook, without any real or perceived WP:SYNTH / WP:OR concerns? While requirements for a DYK may not be as stringent as for GA or FA, we should still have some regard for main-page space.Gaff (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Good piece of work; a very useful article. Plenty long enough when it was nominated, but it's been further expanded since. Nominated on the day it was moved into mainspace. Spotcheck have not revealed any copyviolation. Mostly suitably referenced, but in the section 'Laws, regulations and policies', there is a fully unreferenced table. It should be easy to fix that, given that the references in the subsequent sections appear to refer to the various table rows. The section 'Protection' has an incomplete sentence ending in "citizens this right…", and this should be fixed before this heads to the main page. No other policy issues detected. Regarding the hook, one half isn't cited (the German population bit) and as such, it doesn't pass the requirements. New editor with no DYK history, so no QPQ required. In summary, an excellent piece of work and the issues listed here are easy enough to get on top of. Schwede66 03:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that there are more people in China with disabilities than there are people in Germany, the 16th-most-populous country in the world?
    I'm not saying we need to keep the synthy hook, but this version addresses the concerns above (why Germany? and whither sourced facts?) Obviously introducing the comparison in the actual article is counterproductive. [edit: The bolding needs to be improved as well. Fixed in original hook as well.] — LlywelynII 11:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Per WP:DYK rules on hooks, Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Since Germany isn't even mentioned in this article, any hook that not only mentions Germany but states various facts about the country is a clear non-starter. I've struck both hooks; Appleangel11, you need to come up with a hook where the all the facts are both in the article and properly cited. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Not to get in a war by undoing your strikes myself, but you're being silly. And any time someone is being silly owing to overly-literal application of rules, there's WP:IAR, which supercedes the local one. The number of people is cited and supported and bringing in a helpful sense of scale is no problem here whatsoever, any more than it was with my DYK hook on St Teath where we used a rhyme (not given in the article) instead of giving people the IPA (which was). — LlywelynII 06:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying something totally different and more relevant as the issues for disabled in China are mostly to do with attitudes:

To be more geographically specific that could be

thoughts? --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Review needed of newly proposed ALT hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm happy to review the Alt hooks, but first I'd like to see the outstanding issues addressed as per the above: "in the section 'Laws, regulations and policies', there is a fully unreferenced table. It should be easy to fix that, given that the references in the subsequent sections appear to refer to the various table rows. The section 'Protection' has an incomplete sentence ending in "citizens this right…", and this should be fixed before this heads to the main page." Schwede66 23:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I should have checked on outstanding issues, Schwede66; my apologies. I do note that nominator AppleAngel11 has not edited on Wikipedia since November 25. Perhaps we should set a deadline of January 25 for action to be taken to address the outstanding issues, either by the nominator or by someone else. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • AppleAngel11 made two edits to his or her User page five days ago, but did not make any other edits, and in particular, did not edit here or on the article and indeed has never posted here since the nomination was opened. January 25 has come and gone. This nomination is over three months old, and it's time to close it as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello everyone! I apologize for taking so long to reply... Thank you for taking the time to review my article! I could not really think of another hook (I just thought that this was an interesting fact that a proportion of individuals in China that is not really talked about could outnumber the population of am established nation, such as Germany) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appleangel11 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Disability_in_China&oldid=944438335"