Talk:Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 might as well have been aliens (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Created by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 05:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC).Reply[reply]

  • I agree that the thing about the misquotation is the hookiest fact in the article, but it's clumsily phrased here. For one, the quote is not actually "could have been made by aliens" so, considering this is all about misquotation, we should either use the actual quote or clarify that it is a misquotation. Then "as though it was a real announcement" implies that it was actually, I don't know, a fake announcement? A parody? Also, essay collections don't speak: the chapter in question was written by William Edmonson. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a lot of context to try squeeze into 200 characters, so, and I can't believe I'm suggesting this, why not go with a simple April Fools-style hook:
Readers can then have their expectations shattered when they click through. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely a tricky hook to try write. I don't mind that suggestion -- I'm happy to field more comments about it, because it's definitely a strong one, but it does lean heavy on the contradiction even for April Fool standards. Thank you! Vaticidalprophet 02:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Symbol confirmed.svg The article is long enough (>6,000 chars) and was new enough when nominated. The claims made in the article are supported by citations to reliable published sources. It presents its topic in a suitably neutral manner, not e.g. overstating the collection's importance or impact. I'm not seeing any signs of plagiarism from online sources (the only big hit is, of course, the block quotation from The Space Review). I'm approving hook ALT2; this hook is cited where the claim appears in the text and is extremely interesting; I agree that this might be a nice one to hold onto until April! The QPQ review looks good. What a nicely written article! Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALT2 to T:DYK/P2

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Archaeology, Anthropology, and Interstellar Communication/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 17:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope to be able to review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 17:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'd recommend moving the publication history section above the cultural impact section. That'll provide a bit more context for "was picked up by Gizmodo shortly prior to its intended publication" from the beginning of the impact material.
  • The lead mentions Artnet by name as one of the publications that picked up the out of context quote, but the body doesn't refer to it by name. Recommend referring to Artnet by name in the body, rather than just calling it an "other"
  • Is From Quarks to Quasars RS? It looks like a two-person outfit. Trosper at least appears to be a seasoned science journalist, but Creighton, the one who wrote this, appears to be a grad student specializing in environmental science?
    • I think I'm inclined to call it good enough. Jolene Creighton is a fairly significant science journalist now (actually, I should probably link her there). FQTQ had writers aside from its two editors (looking at the first article I clicked from the sidebar, it wasn't written by either editor), so appears to have had a genuine editorial process and attracted freelancers. Vaticidalprophet 02:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The FQTQ ref lacks the publisher in the citation
  • Other references look fine, and the sole image has a good enough FUR

Other than those, this looks like it's in pretty good shape. I'm a fan of that Foust quotation. Hog Farm Talk 02:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hog Farm, have replied to all these points. What are your thoughts? Vaticidalprophet 13:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]