Template:Did you know nominations/Timothy S. Matthews

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) 14:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Timothy S. Matthews

(

)

Rear Admiral Timothy S. Matthews

... that Rear Admiral Timothy S. Matthews (pictured) received an award from the Association of Old Crows? Source: "Matthews’ awards include the Legion of Merit (2), Meritorious Service Medal (4), Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal (4), the Virgil Lemmon Award for Maintenance Excellence, and the Association of Old Crows’ Maintenance Award." ([1])
- ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Error has no rights
Comment: Pic is there if you want it.

Created by Hawkeye7 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC).

Review General eligibility:

New enough:
Long enough:
Other problems:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - The article seems to be mostly a paraphrase of the USN biography. Earwig scores it as over 40% which is too high in my opinion.
Other problems: - I'm not convinced that the subject is notable. They would pass WP:SOLDIER by dint of being a Rear-Admiral but such ex officio status does not sufficient for DYK, in my opinion. As we only have their service record to go by, we're not getting an independent, rounded view of the subject.

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - The Old Crows organisation has an interesting name but this doesn't make me want to read the subject's page

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article needs work because, I'm just seeing a series of job titles which don't explain what the subject actually did. The USN bio says that they were an Acquisition Professional and so I suppose that they worked in the procurement bureaucracy as a desk jockey. As that bureaucracy is huge, they got to be an admiral per Parkinson's Law and Sir Joseph Porter but it doesn't appear that they saw action or did anything noteworthy. And now they are going round the revolving door. But that's cited to their LinkedIn page! Surely we need more than this? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The Earwig figure of 40% is mainly due to nouns that are repeated. Not only does this not amount to a copyvio problem, but since the source in question is PD, it could have been copied verbatim without paraphrasing.
It is not unusual for a DYK article to be small. The one I reviewed (Error has no rights) barely scratches the surface of the subject. However, I have doubled the size of the article, providing more details about his reforms at the Fleet Readiness Centerss, his role in the 2013 sequestration crisis, and his ongoing role at Lockheed Martin, where he is in charge of a program worth $1 trillion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
The interesting name should be more than sufficient to attract 1,000 page views.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Copying PD material may be adequate to avoid deletion but is insufficient for WP:DYK which states, "text copied verbatim from public domain sources, or which closely paraphrases such sources, is excluded both from the 1,500 minimum character count for new articles". Anyway, if further work has been done, I'll take another look. More anon... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

]Earwig figure is only 38.7% and as far as I can tell, is comprised entirely of nouns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I am offering a fresh review, as a lot of work has been done to the article since the previous review. I have looked at the article in the light of the above comments, and I believe all issues are resolved. I have found no copyvio; merely re-use of job titles etc. The article now demonstrates the notability and interest of the biography subject, in that he has been an essential backbone of the navy, and in spite of not running around action-movie-style or playing heroics, he has probably helped to maintain a lot of the strength of the US Navy in spite of what must have been crushing funding cuts. As with many of these important figures, the Navy would probably be a weaker entity without his work. A lot of real-life grown-up heroism involves plodding office-work, and this chap has shown leadership and achieved a great deal for his country in that way. I am happy with the hook, which checks out fine. As for hookiness, admirals (rear or not) are hooky enough in themselves; the quirky Old Crows link is a bonus. So please keep on with this type of biography; it's an interesting read. Storye book (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I have cropped the above image for better clarity. See File:Timothy S. Matthews (cropped).jpg. Please use it for DYK if you wish. Storye book (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)