Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Souther
- 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 PFHLai (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Jack Souther[edit]
- ... that American Canadian scientist Jack Souther was a pioneer in the study of recent volcanoes and volcanism in Canada?
Created/expanded by Volcanoguy (talk). Self nominated at 23:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC).
The article is well-written and submitted within 7 days of its expansion. There are no indications of copyright violations and sourcing is inline throughout after the lead. Excluding the bibliography added, the expansion is a little over 4x rather than 5x. It is 5x if we include the bibliography, references, etc. The hook is interesting and not too long, but I can find no direct source to support "pioneer in the study". Also, the basis for the hook occurs in the lead and the hook is not inlined sourced. If this can be explicitly discussed in the body with sources, then the hook is ok and in doing so, it may be possible to get to a 5x expansion.I am One of Many (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure I seen a source that described him as a pioneer. Tried finding it again via Google but had no luck; I guess I will have to revise that statement now. How about this:
- ALT2 ... that American Canadian scientist Jack Souther contributed significantly to the early understanding of Quaternary volcanism in Canada?
- I could add more by expanding the Scientific research and/or biography sections. Volcanoguy 01:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Where does it say that references and bibliography do not count as part of an expansion? Volcanoguy 01:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I might be interpreting the rules too strictly, but I was interpreting the bibliography as excluded by Eligibility criteria. If we can include it, then it is over 5x. ALT2 is fine with me. I am One of Many (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Would you considered this a reliable source? I was thinking about using it to expand the article but not too sure of its reliability. Volcanoguy 09:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think it is a reliable source for his views. They are primary sources, but notability does not depend on them nor does the substance of the article, so it is within policy to do so. I am One of Many (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Added a bit more to the article. Volcanoguy 05:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Now over 5x and hook is sourced. It's good to go. I am One of Many (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Added a bit more to the article. Volcanoguy 05:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think it is a reliable source for his views. They are primary sources, but notability does not depend on them nor does the substance of the article, so it is within policy to do so. I am One of Many (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Would you considered this a reliable source? I was thinking about using it to expand the article but not too sure of its reliability. Volcanoguy 09:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I might be interpreting the rules too strictly, but I was interpreting the bibliography as excluded by Eligibility criteria. If we can include it, then it is over 5x. ALT2 is fine with me. I am One of Many (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
