Template:Did you know nominations/University of Virginia Greek life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 06:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

University of Virginia Greek life[edit]

Created by Puppysnot (talk). Self-nominated at 20:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC).

  • The article is long enough, and was new enough when nominated. It is within policy, no copyvios being detected and no obvious close paraphrasing. It is generally well cited. QPQ is apparently still needed. ALT2 is fine, present and well cited. I am dubious about the primary hook and its slight rewording in ALT1. ge actual text in the article is: "... many drew elements from historic UVa buildings or famous Southern icons, such as Monticello or Carr's Hill." This doesn't indicate how many drew from "historic UVa buildings": as oppsoed to "famous sothern icons". More over the source actually says "... designed in an architectural style similar to U.Va.'s own ...", the icons part is not in the cited source at all. The section on Zeta Psi specifically mentions inspiration by Monticello , but one example isnm't "most". Aside from the QPQ, I think ALT2 could be good to go. DES (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @DES, thanks for the review. I'd prefer the primary or ALT1 hooks as I think they're more interesting and more unique to the university's Greek system (I'm an alum and actually didn't know that), but I understand the issue with the use of the word "often." What about the hook, ALT3: ... that houses of several University of Virginia fraternities were styled after Southern architectural icons such as Monticello and Carr's Hill? That would get rid of the issue with "most." Additionally, both Monticello and Carr's Hill can be said to be icons, since Monticello is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and Carr's Hill is on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. I thought QPQ was only needed if I'd nominated more than 5 DYK's, but I'd be happy to do a QPQ if it's needed. Thanks! Puppysnot (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • You are correct, Puppysnot, QPQ is not needed if you have fewer than five DYKs, I should have checked. Do a review if you wish, it aids the project and is good practice, but that is not a reason to hold this nom up. Let me check your revised hook. DES (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem is that none of the sources the article cites mention "Southern architectural icons" or indeed "icons" at all. Deducing "iconic" status from a registry listing seems like original research to me, particularly for the U.S. National Register of Historic Places which lists places for many different reasons. Also "Several" is still a bit of a streach when the cited examplesd actually number two. Find a beter cite for this hoook and it could be good, or perhaps another reviewer woudl accept it. Otherweise ALT2 looks good. DES (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • DES, the sources mention Monticello, which is widely known as an architectural icon. Part of the reason it was chosen as a UNESCO site was that it "is an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural, or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates a significant stage in human history." Carr's Hill, while less notable, was designed by McKim, Mead, and White, some of the most famous architects of the twentieth century (source, section "McKim, Mead, and White"). Is there a particular source that could lead you to accept ALT3? Otherwise, I'd be willing to go with ALT2. Thanks! Puppysnot (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Any reliable source that connsects those dots and explicitly says that these hosues were designed to imitate Southern architectural icons or some simialr wording. When we need to pull these facts together from multiple sources to reach a conclusion, we are engaging in synthesis and therefore original research. Drawing such a conclusion from those sources would be fine if you were writing a new secondary source on this topic, a magazine article about this subject, say. It is not permited on Wikipedia. Some (many) Wikipedia articles improperly do this, but not one intened to be linked from the main page, as DYK entries are. I'm sorry, it is a catchy hook, but it is simply not supported by the curently cited sources, in my opnion. If another reviewer disagrees, so be it, his or her view may take precedence. DES (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • DES, I haven't been able to find a source that explicitly mentions that fraternity homes were modeled after Southern architectural icons (most only mention the two in the article). So how about this: ALT4: "...that houses of many University of Virginia fraternities were styled after residences of the Old South, including Monticello, Farmington, and Carr's Hill?" It is explicitly stated in one of the article's sources (under "Visually connecting to the community") that many houses sought to replicate the style of Southern homes that students were familiar with. This source specifically mentions Monticello and Farmington on Page 282, and the first source I linked demonstrates the connection to Carr's Hill (captioned as the "President's House"). Let me know what you think. Puppysnot (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That will work, Puppysnot, provided that a sentance saying so explicitly is added to the article, and sourced to the source you quote here. That should be easy enough. I remember seeing that phrase in one of the sources I looked through earlier for this review. Make that change, add the revised hook as, what are we up to now, ALT5, above, ping me, and I will mark this as good to go. Sigh! Sorry to ahve been so nitpicking, but that is how I see the role of DYK reviewer. DES (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • DES, I added the new source to the article and reworded it to reflect the conversations we had here. If you're willing to accept ALT4 above, is there anything else I need to do? And I understand being nitpicking, I think it serves to improve the content. Puppysnot (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Now good to go with ALT4. ALT2 is also approved. Puppysnot my understandin is thst your part of this is done (as is mine), you just wait until this gets to the head of the queue. And of course go out and write more fine articles while waiting. Thanks. DES (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your help DES, I appreciate the support. Puppysnot (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)