- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Liane Davey
edit- ... that business author Liane Davey uses the label "bobblehead" for a team that underperforms due to excess conformity?
Moved to mainspace by Woz2 (talk). Self nominated at 23:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC).
I think that the sourcing needs to be more thorough (to elaborate, it would be nice if every sentence had at least one source). If you will fix that, though, then this DYK? nomination of yours might be good to go. Futurist110 (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ok done. Woz2 (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not quite--this sentence: "She identifies several such pathologies; first, glibly agreeable behavior ("Bobblehead teams"); second, teams that only act when a disaster strikes ("Crisis junkies"); third, teams that engage in passive-aggressive backstabbing ("Bleeding Back teams"); forth, teams where most members sit around and watch one or two members do all the work ("Spectator teams"); and last, teams that engage in fighting for fighting's sake ("Royal Rumble teams")." -- does not appear to have a source for it. Cosnidering that some of the info in this sentence appears to be hook for this DYK? nomination, it needs to be sourced. Futurist110 (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also, don't you need to have the exact pages of a book listed in the source, rather than simply the name of the book itself? I am sorry if I appear to be strict here--I simply want this DYK? nomination to be done correctly. Futurist110 (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK I added that cite. I have the book on Kindle so don't know what the page numbers are. I don't believe page numbers are required. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. However, I appear to have noticed another concern for this DYK? nomination. This articles does not appear to have been expanded fivefold in the five days before you nominated it (which I think would be between 23:05 on May 20 and 23:05 on May 25). This appears to be one of the DYK? requirements (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria), and thus, unless someone is willing to bend the DYK? rules for you, I fear that your DYK? nomination might need to be rejected. Let's have someone else look at this DYK? nomination and give us a second opinion. Also, for the record, I myself did not make up the DYK? rules--I am simply trying to accurately enforce them. Anyway, take care. :) Futurist110 (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is eligible. Please read criteria 1d about "moved from user space to mainspace"Woz2 (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, OK. In that case, I am approving this DYK? nomination, but I would still like someone else to take a second look at it just to make sure that I didn't screw up anywhere. Futurist110 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is eligible. Please read criteria 1d about "moved from user space to mainspace"Woz2 (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. However, I appear to have noticed another concern for this DYK? nomination. This articles does not appear to have been expanded fivefold in the five days before you nominated it (which I think would be between 23:05 on May 20 and 23:05 on May 25). This appears to be one of the DYK? requirements (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria), and thus, unless someone is willing to bend the DYK? rules for you, I fear that your DYK? nomination might need to be rejected. Let's have someone else look at this DYK? nomination and give us a second opinion. Also, for the record, I myself did not make up the DYK? rules--I am simply trying to accurately enforce them. Anyway, take care. :) Futurist110 (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK I added that cite. I have the book on Kindle so don't know what the page numbers are. I don't believe page numbers are required. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Also, don't you need to have the exact pages of a book listed in the source, rather than simply the name of the book itself? I am sorry if I appear to be strict here--I simply want this DYK? nomination to be done correctly. Futurist110 (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not quite--this sentence: "She identifies several such pathologies; first, glibly agreeable behavior ("Bobblehead teams"); second, teams that only act when a disaster strikes ("Crisis junkies"); third, teams that engage in passive-aggressive backstabbing ("Bleeding Back teams"); forth, teams where most members sit around and watch one or two members do all the work ("Spectator teams"); and last, teams that engage in fighting for fighting's sake ("Royal Rumble teams")." -- does not appear to have a source for it. Cosnidering that some of the info in this sentence appears to be hook for this DYK? nomination, it needs to be sourced. Futurist110 (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ok done. Woz2 (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
