Template:Did you know nominations/Cristina Takacs-Vesbach
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Cristina Takacs-Vesbach
[edit]- ... that Cristina Takacs-Vesbach was the first to study bacteria at more than 4 km below the surface of the Antarctic ice?
Created by Allisonlee9 (talk) and Evolution and evolvability (talk). Nominated by Evolution and evolvability (talk) at 13:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC).
Article is new but was already 12 days old at time of nomination, and with most of its content having been created on the first day (although the article is long enough). Additionally, the article has a blank infobox, needs to be reviewed and footnoted more thoroughly, has minor grammatical and formatting errors, and an orphan tag, but does not seem to have any copyright or close paraphrasing. It also has neutrality issues. Also, while the hook is sourced, neutral, interesting, and short enough, the article describes Takacs-Vesbach as having been part of a team and not acting alone, so maybe the hook would need to be reworded. I also can't find any indication that the nominator has reviewed another article. – TCMemoire 03:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Since this is the nominator's first DYK nomination, I think we can be lenient about the 12-day lead time. However, the references do not show notability; none discuss Takacs-Vesbach in depth, and the hook is not cited inline. If the page creator or nominator can find independent, reliable sources to prove notability, this could be re-reviewed. Yoninah (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing this out. I'm stll getting used to DYKs. The specific hook is easy to get a reference for (which I shall do either way). The general notability is harder to support with a specific reference. She was included based on WP:NACADEMIC-1 in that the impact of her work is far above others in her field [1]. Either way, I'll clean up the claim on her page, whether or not she is sufficient for a DYK. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo), it has been over three weeks, and despite a great deal of Wikipedia activity in the interim, you have not returned to this article or nomination. If you wish to pursue the DYK, we'll need to see activity soon to address the issues raised—let's say by July 29, one month from your last comment here. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
- My apologies for completely neglecting this thread. Getting the article up to DYK standard is going to be beyond my time-allowance at the moment. Thank you for reviewing, and I will make attempts to implement the article fixes over the long-term. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
