- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Nominator lost interest
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
book test
edit... that the book test is one of the oldest tricks in the book, dating at least as far back as 1572?
Created by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self nominated at 15:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC).
Meets DYK criteria, but QPQ review required. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- (April 1) ... that reading a book you have never seen is one of the oldest tricks in the book?
- 1st attempt at alt. What could be better than using trick articles on April 1st? Victuallers (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Love it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: Glad you like it MM. The article reads very well, is long enough, and almost has enough cites. Could you just check that each para has a cite (I can see one now). The main hook fact is reffed but the relevant section is not available to me. As Cwmhiraeth notes the QPQ is required and I'm not sure if we need a third person to approve my hook. I think your tick will do. Victuallers (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's at the bottom of page 227, that isn't visible to you? I get a pretty complete preview, I guess it depends on your IP? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
QPQ on Marquee Moon. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Third-person reviewer needed for ALT1 hook. As noted by Victuallers in his review, the second paragraph of the Mnemonic gimmicks section (the one describing "hybrid" systems) needs an inline source citation, so that should be checked by the reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- The part about reading a book you have never seen is verified and cited inline. The part about the oldest trick in the book is AGF and cited inline. However, the second paragraph under Mnemonic gimmicks still doesn't have a cite. Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- And if I can jump in with another question--I don't understand the Karmilovich entry in the bibliography: publication information is missing, and the link is to what looks like a sales brochure. Also, see "History", par. starting "Modern variations"--toward the end, there is mention of "both versions", which is unproblematic, but this is followed by "with better-known examples": examples of what? of both versions? I think the article as a whole needs a bit of a scrubbing. (I only came by here because I thought I might be able to deliver a quick reference for the un-footnoted paragraph, but was unable to.) Drmies (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Should all be there now. Drmies, I'm not sure any of this is suitable for discussion here, I think the talk page is more appropriate. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. However, I believe these things are relevant in deciding on front-page coverage. I see that the link to the sales brochure is still there (I don't know what else to call it--it lists positive blurbs, the sales price, and the ordering information. I suppose that brochure is what's cited (" Karmilovich, p. 5.", for instance), but I don't see how the entire last paragraph of the section "Dictionary gimmicks" is verified on page 5 of that brochure. In other words, I wouldn't send it on in its current state, but I'm just passing by. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a sales brochure. Are you concerned about the suitability of this document to serve as a reference? Or is it something about the formatting or lack of information? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- It also struck me that the sales brochure is not a reliable source. Yoninah (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- We use marketing materials from thousands of companies in hundreds of thousands of articles, from Apple to Boeing. Can you be more specific about why you believe this one should not be used, in the manner it is being used? For instance, the first reference simply states that there is a version of the book test with this name. I would think that a brochure for said product with that name is perfectly suitable for proving existence. No? 13:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the brochure is complete enough. I would rather you cite the book it's promoting, not the brochure. If you found a page with a proper excerpt of the book material, it would be more acceptable. Yoninah (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- What Yoninah said. The claim that so many articles are "verified" by "references" like these can't really be taken seriously, and that one would verify a sales brochure for a book rather than the book itself runs counter to any encyclopedic intuition I've ever had. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- We use marketing materials from thousands of companies in hundreds of thousands of articles, from Apple to Boeing. Can you be more specific about why you believe this one should not be used, in the manner it is being used? For instance, the first reference simply states that there is a version of the book test with this name. I would think that a brochure for said product with that name is perfectly suitable for proving existence. No? 13:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- It also struck me that the sales brochure is not a reliable source. Yoninah (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a sales brochure. Are you concerned about the suitability of this document to serve as a reference? Or is it something about the formatting or lack of information? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
So are you both saying this article cannot be passed for DYK in it's current form? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I would say that the ref should be removed from the page, and if it's the only ref for the text, the text should be removed too. Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- You didn't answer the question. Whatever, I give up. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I did. But it's too late now, April 1 has passed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. If you could add a cite to the third paragraph under Dictionary gimmicks, we'll be ready to run. Yoninah (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nah, I've lost all interest in this. Perhaps you might ask one of the other editors that have added to the article since this process started three months ago. Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- This article is ready to run aside from the uncited third paragraph under Dictionary gimmicks. I looked through the other sources, and also did some Google searches, but was unable to find this information in a source. Since Rule D2 calls for at least one citation per paragraph, and since this (rather long) paragraph isn't cited, should we just delete the paragraph and approve the nomination? Yoninah (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nah, I've lost all interest in this. Perhaps you might ask one of the other editors that have added to the article since this process started three months ago. Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I've just read the whole Dictionary gimmicks section, and it doesn't quote hold together. The second paragraph appears to have the lefts and rights mixed up—it doesn't make sense to have the magician point to the upper right corner, which is where he copied the top-left word in light pencil for him to read, when the whole point is for the target to read the bolded first word on the left page and not notice the trick. The third paragraph also seems to mix up rights and lefts at least once, and since there isn't a citation, we can't tell how. Under the circumstances, and given Maury once again being unwilling to adhere to D2, my vote is to reject. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
There being no objection in three days to rejecting this, I'm marking it for closure as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
