Template:Did you know nominations/Jack and Ed Biddle
- 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) 12:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Jack and Ed Biddle
edit- ALT0 ... that warden's wife Kate Soffel, who fled with condemned brothers Jack and Ed Biddle after supplying guns and saws for their 1902 escape from the Allegheny County Jail, later took up dressmaking?
5x expanded by CasimirCrazyHorse (talk). Nominated by EEng (talk) at 01:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC).
- I should have mentioned when making the nomination: Kate Soffel is a redirect to Jack and Ed Biddle, so there's no point in linking both in the hook, and in fact it would annoy readers to follow both links and find they go the same place. Since the hook is really about Soffel, I think it is she that should be "emboldened" (so to speak), rather than they. EEng (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- The link to the DYK article should be directly to the actual article rather than a redirect. Yes, they should definitely not both be linked. Since you want the bold link to be on "Kate Soffel", I changed [[Kate Soffel]] to [[Jack and Ed Biddle|Kate Soffel]]. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see why I should care one way or another, but my curiosity is getting the best of me... why does this matter? EEng (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Some reasons: The bot would complain that it was unable to find the hook corresponding to the article. The DYK notifications placed on the user and article talk pages would not include the text of the hook. And those notifications include a link for seeing the number of page views, but that link would be for the number of hits the actual article title got, and would not include the hits generated by people clicking on the redirect in the DYK, which are tabulated separately.
Note to potential reviewers: this nomination has not received any kind of review yet. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Some reasons: The bot would complain that it was unable to find the hook corresponding to the article. The DYK notifications placed on the user and article talk pages would not include the text of the hook. And those notifications include a link for seeing the number of page views, but that link would be for the number of hits the actual article title got, and would not include the hits generated by people clicking on the redirect in the DYK, which are tabulated separately.
- I don't see why I should care one way or another, but my curiosity is getting the best of me... why does this matter? EEng (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
This article has a plethora of "clarification needed" templates, "when?" templates, and a "not in citation given" warning. These need to be resolved, or this article can't go on the main page.--¿3family6 contribs 17:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- I added the tags hoping the editor who developed the article would fill in some details. But he/she hasn't, so I've removed all the but three most essential "clarify-neededs," plus a "when?". I don't think that's too embarrassing for main page. Thanks for taking the trouble to do the review. (Great flick, by the way.) EEng (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- @EEng: It shouldn't be too hard to fix the clarification issues. I don't feel comfortable promoting the article with them there, though. Could you perhaps clean them up/elaborate on the sentences?--¿3family6 contribs 02:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- "It shouldn't be too hard to fix the clarification issues." And you know that how? The answers aren't in the online sources cited in the article, and I don't feel like going to the library to research this particular subject. (I stubbed the article long ago, but didn't do the real work -- some other editor did a few weeks ago.) Yet some other editor might be so inspired, prompted by the tags. Every goddam time I nominate a DYK I run into this idea that new content developed in five days is supposed to be all shiny and perfect. It's ridiculous. This isn't TFA, it's DYK. It's WP's "newest" content, not "best" content. Can you point me to a rule or guideline calling for the article to be tag-free?
Or, perhaps, I'll do what I see so many DYK regulars doing, which is to just remove cite-needed, clarify-needed, better-source-needed, and other tags whose job it is to attract other editors to improve the article, thereby just pretending that the article is "finished", with nothing further to be done, even though a superficial read shows it clearly needs work.
Again, please point me to the rule or guideline you're following here.
EEng (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- One clarification tag or two isn't all that big a deal. But three clarification tags plus two date requests is not so clean. Sorry, I assumed that it would not be too hard to find the dates for when the Biddles were arrested, tried, and convicted. And that does seem like very basic, important information, does it not? Also, where is Graham farm? I don't even think the state is mentioned. Is it still in PA? The other two clarification tags aren't that big a deal, and I'll go ahead and try to resolve them myself.--¿3family6 contribs 02:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also, the final paragraph(s) in the "Pursuit and capture" section either need to be cited or else removed (although the former is by far the better option content-wise).--¿3family6 contribs 02:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something due to the length of this review, the prose in all of the paras you are mentioning is clearly cited here. I'm willing to fix any others that you think need it, Google is hitting every one I try. That said:
- "It shouldn't be too hard to fix the clarification issues." And you know that how? The answers aren't in the online sources cited in the article, and I don't feel like going to the library to research this particular subject. (I stubbed the article long ago, but didn't do the real work -- some other editor did a few weeks ago.) Yet some other editor might be so inspired, prompted by the tags. Every goddam time I nominate a DYK I run into this idea that new content developed in five days is supposed to be all shiny and perfect. It's ridiculous. This isn't TFA, it's DYK. It's WP's "newest" content, not "best" content. Can you point me to a rule or guideline calling for the article to be tag-free?
- @EEng: It shouldn't be too hard to fix the clarification issues. I don't feel comfortable promoting the article with them there, though. Could you perhaps clean them up/elaborate on the sentences?--¿3family6 contribs 02:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- I added the tags hoping the editor who developed the article would fill in some details. But he/she hasn't, so I've removed all the but three most essential "clarify-neededs," plus a "when?". I don't think that's too embarrassing for main page. Thanks for taking the trouble to do the review. (Great flick, by the way.) EEng (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- ALT1:
... that when Jack and Ed Biddle escaped from the Allegheny County Jail in 1902, the warden's wife fled with them after supplying guns and saws? - ALT2:
... the warden's wife fled with Jack and Ed Biddle after supplying them with guns and saws for their escape from the Allegheny County Jail in 1902?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs) 12:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually the "Origins" source was already in the article, but you're right that it can be used for a few things not already cited.
It's not a big deal to me, but I prefer ALT0. ALTs 1 and 2 don't mention the Biddles were condemned (which always adds frisson -- two guys locked up for parking tickets just wouldn't be as much fun); they don't mention Soffel by name (which she deserves, and she's the most interesting of the three -- great flick, BTW); and the dressmaking is a fitting anticlimax. EEng (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I guess its down to opinion, but ALT0 is confusing to read, hides the article name for no apparent reason, and adds an ending flourish which does nothing for the hook. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it comes down to opinion, and I'm sure we can come to some fair compromise. As an initial proposed compromise, let me suggest that we just do it my way.
- Just kidding. But I think you're worrying about some things that aren't really problems. For example, you're right that the article title (formally) isn't in the hook, but that's OK -- it's a merged article, about two subjects: (1) the Biddles, and (2) Kate Soffel. In a case like the one or the other has to be chosen as the title of the article (in this case the Biddles) but that doesn't mean that Soffel is any less a fit subject for a hook -- her being in bold in the lead, with an appropriate redirect entry under her name, is probably the threshold requirement there.
- I really don't see what's confusing to read about ALT0. "Kate Soffel, who did [something] after doing [something], later did [something]." It packs in a lot of detail, which helps catch reader interest -- readers interested in capital punishment, readers interested in prisons, readers interested in saws and guns, readers interested in dressmaking... ;) .
- But I really don't know what you mean about the "ending flourish" doing nothing for the hook. Hooks are supposed to be "hooky" -- intriguing. The contrast between the image of the freed-from-her-fetters-of-staid-middleclass-convention gun moll fleeing with her illicit lover, and her later prosaic existence as a dressmaker, lends such intrigue (well, maybe not intrigue, but you get the idea).
- At least, that's the way I see it. Further thoughts? EEng (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I like the original hook. And I think the article as it now stands can go forward to the main page. Does anyone disagree?--¿3family6 contribs 00:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Mr. or Ms. Family. I like the fact that, though you and I are having a bit of a disagreement elsewhere, you don't let that engender friction everywhere. You thus show yourself to be a gentleman (or gentlewoman), and a scholar. EEng (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Full review from scratch. Long enough, 5x expanded (for 5 April nomination.) I understand that because this is not a self-nom, there is no need for QPQ. No disambig or external link problems. Original hook (ALT0) checks out with citations #8 for the dramatic events and #9 for the dressmaking. The hook is longer than normal, but it is interesting enough to be acceptable. There are two question templates remaining ("When" and "Clarification needed") in order to encourage further editing, but that is OK for a DYK. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Mr. or Ms. Family. I like the fact that, though you and I are having a bit of a disagreement elsewhere, you don't let that engender friction everywhere. You thus show yourself to be a gentleman (or gentlewoman), and a scholar. EEng (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- I guess its down to opinion, but ALT0 is confusing to read, hides the article name for no apparent reason, and adds an ending flourish which does nothing for the hook. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Pulled from prep area. Reviewing guide specifically states
Check the article to make sure there are no dispute templates. Any such issues need to be resolved before the article is used for DYK. Also, check the recent edit history to make sure that there wasn't a dispute template that was removed without fixing the problem.
— Maile (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- This is just too delicious for words. Care to tell us what in the current version linked here, so we're sure we're all talking about the same thing constitutes a "dispute template"? EEng (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Under Arrest and detention, first line: "when?" Under Pursuit and recapture, third paragraph, "clarification needed" (you added that one). BTW the part about taking up dressmaking needs a cite after that line in the article for DYK purposes. Yoninah (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? [1] EEng (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- EEng is right on this one - those are not dispute tags, per their respective documentations.--¿3family6 contribs 00:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- What do you mean, "on this one"? I'm always right. Crisco says there's a DYK rule letting editors make up their own DYK rules [2], so I'm making up DYK Supplementary Rule D84.3(b): EEng is always right. EEng (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- I might have knocked it back if it had dispute tags, but when? and clarification required are not in category:dispute templates. Moreover, there is nothing from the tagger on the talk page, so it looks like drive-by tagging. The article maintainer can feel free to toss them out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I added them, in some cases (possibly) on material I contributed. For example, somewhere the article says such-and-such happened at "the Graham farm" -- the source says that too. I have no idea how to figure out what farm this is, so I added [clarification needed], in the same hope you expressed above -- someone clicking through DYK to the article may know how to get the answer and source it. The tags aren't disputatious, and I wouldn't even call them drive-by -- they're invitations to improve the article. The problem here is not the tags, it's the mindless reaction to them. EEng (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Based on everything here and elsewhere, and I trust Hawkeye7's experience on this issue, it appears these were not dispute tags. However, if this is promoted, someone else needs to do it. "self-appointed DYK gatekeepers devoid of judgment" - you don't earn courtesies of any kind by beating other editors over the head with insulting dialogue. Your attitude on several nominations is just too combative.— Maile (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not looking for courtesies, just some kind of predictability about what the rules are and what's expected. No one should be put through the wringer, as I was, by people way too comfortable making imperious pronouncements based on their whims and misreading of guidelines and policy. It's worth noting that all three noms have been passed essentially unchanged. EEng (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Based on everything here and elsewhere, and I trust Hawkeye7's experience on this issue, it appears these were not dispute tags. However, if this is promoted, someone else needs to do it. "self-appointed DYK gatekeepers devoid of judgment" - you don't earn courtesies of any kind by beating other editors over the head with insulting dialogue. Your attitude on several nominations is just too combative.— Maile (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I added them, in some cases (possibly) on material I contributed. For example, somewhere the article says such-and-such happened at "the Graham farm" -- the source says that too. I have no idea how to figure out what farm this is, so I added [clarification needed], in the same hope you expressed above -- someone clicking through DYK to the article may know how to get the answer and source it. The tags aren't disputatious, and I wouldn't even call them drive-by -- they're invitations to improve the article. The problem here is not the tags, it's the mindless reaction to them. EEng (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- I might have knocked it back if it had dispute tags, but when? and clarification required are not in category:dispute templates. Moreover, there is nothing from the tagger on the talk page, so it looks like drive-by tagging. The article maintainer can feel free to toss them out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- What do you mean, "on this one"? I'm always right. Crisco says there's a DYK rule letting editors make up their own DYK rules [2], so I'm making up DYK Supplementary Rule D84.3(b): EEng is always right. EEng (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- EEng is right on this one - those are not dispute tags, per their respective documentations.--¿3family6 contribs 00:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? [1] EEng (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- This is just too delicious for words. Care to tell us what in the current version linked here, so we're sure we're all talking about the same thing constitutes a "dispute template"? EEng (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- support Alt1. Dressmaking is dull and irrelevant. Running off with the warden's wife is the interesting hook. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Update to my review of 1 June: I conclude from the discussion above that this nom is not going to be promoted until the clarification tags are justifiably removed.--Storye book (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- (a) The two "when" tags in the Jack and Ed Biddle#Arrest and conviction section can be replaced by a re-wording saying that the arrest and conviction can be dated sometime between April 1901 and January 1902. We can say this because they committed a crime in April 1901 before being arrested, and attempted their jail breakout in January 1902 after being convicted. This is borne out by online citation #3.--Storye book (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- (b) Re the "clarification needed" template in the Jack and Ed Biddle#Pursuit and recapture section, the answer is already in citation #3. The following is my own paraphrase: It says that Detective Charles "Buck" McGovern wanted to do what they used to do in Westerns and head them off at the pass. That is, the bad guys were obviously going to escape to Canada via certain back roads, and Graham Farm was at a place that the bad guys had to pass through, so McGovern stationed his posse at the farm to head them off. So if you write something along those lines it will clarify what happened and you've already got citation #3 there anyway.--Storye book (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you can do this, EEng, the article can be promoted.--Storye book (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- In hopes of moving this along I've looked up the dates and added them, with citations to the source. Couldn't find any further information about where "Graham farm" was, other than it was in Bucks County. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have struck ALT1 and ALT2 because they miss out the word "condemned" and that point has been made above by EEng on 29 May. My review still supports the original hook because as EEng explains in the same comment above, dressmaking being boring is the whole point - it contrasts with the guns, saws and death-sentence associated with the Biddles.--Storye book (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Happy to cooperate. Please bear mind that through some cruel twist of fate three noms of mine all hit the fan simultaneously, so in addition to the Jean Berko Gleason touchup I promised for early next week I have some IRL matters to attend to. So I'll need to queue this behind Gleason. Quite coincidentally I found some great images which I added yesterday. EEng (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, EEng and Mary Mark Ockerbloom. Tags replaced with required information, and new article images are free. All issues resolved. Good to go (at last). --Storye book (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Happy to cooperate. Please bear mind that through some cruel twist of fate three noms of mine all hit the fan simultaneously, so in addition to the Jean Berko Gleason touchup I promised for early next week I have some IRL matters to attend to. So I'll need to queue this behind Gleason. Quite coincidentally I found some great images which I added yesterday. EEng (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)