Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Mia Borders

< 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: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Mia Borders edit

(
)
Mia Borders with arm tattoo
Mia Borders with arm tattoo
Mia Borders by Rick Moore, 2016
Mia Borders by Rick Moore, 2016

Created by Moonraker (talk). Self-nominated at 08:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC).

  • Long enough, new enough, qpq done, hook is interesting and of an appropriate length. However, I have concerns about the sourcing. The citation for the hook is a Huffington Post "contributor." As with e.g. Forbes, they host content for other bloggers that aren't Huffington Post staff, aren't subject to editorial oversight, and isn't actually part of the main site (and typically not considered a reliable source). All in all, I only see one reliable source cited in the article (the Spielman book). The YouTube video and prweb are press releases/marketing companies, the MTV page is their database listing that's filled with press release content (that same text is found all over the internet among promoters), and Bandcamp is a primary source. The article contains the line: "The Times-Picayune has called Borders "confident and cool" and USA Today "deeply funky",[5] while OffBeat has hailed her "great music and great intensity".[3]" -- but none of those publications/sources are actually cited, instead pointing to press release materials. It may be that if you could find these other sources, they could serve to simply replace the others and resolve the sourcing concern (though the hook would probably have to be swapped out).
  • As a side note, the image probably isn't good for the main page because of the jarring watermark. I took the liberty of trying to remove it myself and reuploaded the results at File:Mia Borders (no watermark).jpg. The quality of the Photoshop work is not great, admittedly (it's a bigger watermark than I've attempted before), but may be good enough to include in DYK. Alternatively, there is a Commons category at Category:Mia Borders which includes a few others. If the hook references her voice, it may be good to use an image of her singing (e.g. File:Mia Borders FQF 2012 1.jpg). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • On that hook, per WP:NEWSORG, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." That seems to apply here, as we're only dealing with a statement attributed to the author, who (as it happens) is notable as well. If I can find a better hook I'll add it as an Alt. Moonraker (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The op-eds, etc. it's talking about are those published in an otherwise reliable publication. Here Huffington Post is basically functioning as a fancier blogspot.com. As it says, "Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site." (i.e. WP:SPS). There are some hundreds of thousands of "contributors." Opinion pieces indeed can be reliable in some contexts, but there also has to be a reason it is a reliable source in that context rather than reasons why it's not unreliable. Otherwise we could just include anything written by anyone, promotional or not, self-published or not. I've seen HuffPo contributors shot down at least a couple times at RSN, but it's certainly possible something has changed more recently that I'm not aware of, so I'd welcome additional input on the matter if you'd like to solicit it there (or from the DYK talk page, say). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Moonraker, Rhododendrites, it's been over three weeks since the above was posted. Since then, Moonraker made a series of edits to the article on March 7, but I don't know whether they fully addressed the issues raised by Rhododendrites. Can we please have a status report? Thanks to you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, I've solved some of the problems found by Rhododendrites. I think I should find a new hook, as the reliability of the source is doubted, although it still seems to me that even a blog could verify that something has been said on the blog! Especially when it has been said by a notable contributor who has a Wikipedia article. Let me see if I can sort it out tomorrow. Moonraker (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It has been over three weeks, and Moonraker has not provided a new hook despite talk-page reminders. Marking for closure, though if a new hook is provided before this nomination is closed, the review can continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, apologies, I've been busy in real life. Have now added an Alt, will do some work this morning on cleaning up the problems found by Rhododendrites, then ping him. Moonraker (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Rhododendrites, I've added two Alts and cleaned up the references, will you see if this has solved the problems? Moonraker (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Moonraker: Thanks. The issues I mentioned above have, generally, been addressed, yes. I have a mild preference for alt1 over alt2, although since the image doesn't include the tattoo (or maybe only partially?), it may be confusing to have it appear with the hook. There are a couple other good quotes in the sources that could also work, e.g. that she "manages to be simultaneously clean, sultry and a bit lascivious" ([1]), or that when asked what kind of album she'd make if she were happy in her relationships, she replied "I don’t even know if I’d want to hear it [...] I’ll stay angry for a while so I can get more good tunes out of it" ([2]). Obviously these aren't formatted as hooks at this point, and would need to be added to the article. Just floating these as possibilities. If you confirm you prefer alt1 or add one of those I'd be happy to add a green tick. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Rhododendrites: I have a preference for Alt2, which is the punchiest, but I don't know if swear words are a problem now for DYK hooks. I've added another pic (which was already on Commons) of the arm tattoo, and also a third Alt. I think it's normal for you to say whether the article meets the criteria and whether any or all of the hooks is properly cited, then let the DYK volunteer moving the nomination on decide which one to use? Moonraker (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know if there's an issue with swearing on the main page either, but honestly alt2 just struck me as a hook that's about the shock value of the word, which to me is less relevant to the subject and does her lyrics an injustice. But I say that not having heard her music. Maybe I'll have to give it a listen. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Issues addressed. My preference is alt3 or alt1, but noting the nominator prefers alt2, I'm perfectly content to leave the judgment to whoever puts together the set. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Mia_Borders&oldid=1019936237"