Template:Did you know nominations/Dial (soap)
- The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Dial (soap)
[edit]- ... that Dial soap was originally created and marketed by the Armour and Company meat packing firm?
- Reviewed: Woahink Lake
Created/expanded by MelanieN (talk). Self nom at 01:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Article is on 5 x expansion, long enough, no plagiarism found. I must admit that I find the hook rather dull (A produced B). The one interesting thing I see in the article is that their advertisement slogan has made it into everyday language. This claim, however, is not supported by the indicated source. Another issue is that something like "leading producer of X" should not be referenced just to the company web site. References 4 and 5 are ads, which is fine for a statements like "A advertised B as X" but not for the preceding factual statements--they need to be separately sourced. tl;dr: Please improve the sourcing and suggest an interesting hook. --Pgallert (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you say the hook is not interesting; I thought it was quite unexpected that a soap was produced by a meat packing firm! Should I make that a little more overt? I'll take a look at the sourcing as you suggest and get back to you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding sourcing: I have provided better sources regarding hexachlorophene and "leading deodorant soap brand". The two statements which are sourced to advertisements are "the product was advertised as 'the first truly effective deodororant soap' " and "referred to by the company as AT-7"; in both cases the information is specifically about how the product was advertised ("A advertised B as X"), so a citation to an ad seems appropriate. I can't really see how to make a hook out of the advertising slogan, which in any case is no longer a commonly used catch phrase as it once was, since its use in ads was discontinued almost 20 years ago; if you think that means it did not really "pass into the language," I will remove that phrase. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Possible rewriting of hook: ALT1: ... that Dial deodorant soap was created and marketed by a meat packing firm?
- Regarding sourcing: I have provided better sources regarding hexachlorophene and "leading deodorant soap brand". The two statements which are sourced to advertisements are "the product was advertised as 'the first truly effective deodororant soap' " and "referred to by the company as AT-7"; in both cases the information is specifically about how the product was advertised ("A advertised B as X"), so a citation to an ad seems appropriate. I can't really see how to make a hook out of the advertising slogan, which in any case is no longer a commonly used catch phrase as it once was, since its use in ads was discontinued almost 20 years ago; if you think that means it did not really "pass into the language," I will remove that phrase. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you say the hook is not interesting; I thought it was quite unexpected that a soap was produced by a meat packing firm! Should I make that a little more overt? I'll take a look at the sourcing as you suggest and get back to you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, soaps are made from fat, so the connection that a meat manufacturer might make soap was not too surprising for me. But I withdraw that concern, as it might not be general knowledge. The sourcing has improved now but I still have a few concerns. I added a bit of info to the article and tagged three phrases that in my opinion are not sufficiently supported. --Pgallert (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think I'll just withdraw the DYK nomination. Offhand I am not able to come up with a Reliable Source for every sentence in the article. I knew that kind of detailed sourcing can be required for a Good Article, but I didn't realize it was now also being required for a DYK article. IMO the article meets the DYK criteria as published - including the requirement that the hook be sourced - but I haven't the time or inclination to provide sourcing for every statement in the article. It's not that important to me. Let's just let it go. --MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I see that the Reviewing Guide for DYKs says "The article in general should use inline cited sources. A rule of thumb for DYK is a minimum of one citation per paragraph, possibly excluding the introduction, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize information that's cited elsewhere." Maybe they need to change that, if the criteria are stricter now. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Melanie, it is not "me against you" - I am just as much interested in successfully concluding this nomination as you are. DYK regulars have taken quite some flak in the last year, and every little mistake on the reviewer's side will cause drama. This has made certain rules to be applied stricter than it used to be. Stricter than for Good Articles actually. I thought it would be little effort to state where you got your information from, and the rule by which the article currently does not pass is eligibility criterion 4 (verifiability). This is of course my personal interpretation, and I can be (and frequently am) wrong. But normally one of the hundreds of editors following the goings-on on this page will jump in if nominator or reviewer go over the top and demand unreasonable things.
- That said, I believe two of the three remaining issues are best solved by removing the claim along with the [citation needed] tag, I will do that right away. The third claim, The name Dial was chosen because the soap advertised "'round-the-clock" protection is actually interesting and I would not want to remove it--can you really not remember where this was mentioned? --Pgallert (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I do know where I got the other two items of information - but it was not from a Reliable Source, it was from a Wikipedia-type source. I will see if I can source the name Dial; give me a day or so because I don't have time right now. But seriously, I don't really care if this goes to DYK or not, and would just as soon drop it. No hard feelings, and sorry if I sounded like I was accusing you of anything. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that was actually easy - the reason for the name is right there on the company's website. I assume that source is acceptable for this fact, since they are the ones who chose the name so they are actually the best source to explain their reasoning. --MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Melanie, I just want to say that this is a great topic and you should not give up on it for DYK. I formatted all the references (which is another DYK requirement) and added a book reference to replace the advertisements in newspapers. I also found a book reference for the reason for the name. Pgallert, are we ready for the main page? Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Here's an alt idea:
- ALT2: ... that Dial soap, the world's first antibacterial soap, was so-named because it promised "round-the-clock" protection from perspiration odor? Yoninah (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, soaps are made from fat, so the connection that a meat manufacturer might make soap was not too surprising for me. But I withdraw that concern, as it might not be general knowledge. The sourcing has improved now but I still have a few concerns. I added a bit of info to the article and tagged three phrases that in my opinion are not sufficiently supported. --Pgallert (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your help, Yoninah! (Man, there are so many new DYK requirements now! I hadn't nominated an article for DYK since August 2011, and I seriously doubt if I will ever nominate one again.) Regarding the hook, I still prefer the (to me, and probably most people) surprising fact that this "health and beauty aid" was invented, manufactured, and marketed for decades by a meat packing company (ALT-1). Seriously, which do you think the most people are likely to be surprised/intrigued by, and click on to find out more: "This hand-and-body soap was made and sold by a meat packing company" or "this is how this product got its name"? --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I'm sorry if that sounded harsh. I'm not criticizing you guys; you are doing your job as you see it, and a thankless job it is, I'm sure. (Thank you BTW.) My complaint is just that I wish all these extra requirements had been listed at Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules, so that I would have known what I was getting into. --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- The rules by and large are still the same as last year but their interpretation has changed, and this is hard to see. For instance, the rule states "no bare URLs" but the way it is interpreted is "complete and consistently formatted references". The rule says "claims must have reliable sources". It used to mean "some claims must have somewhat reliable sources", and now it is rather "all but the least important claims must have absolutely reliable sources". Maybe an introductory statement that rules are today rather strictly interpreted and enforced, would be in order. --Pgallert (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Voila, ready for the main page with the original hook or any of the ALTs. If you compare the versions at nomination and at approval it is clear that the DYK process actually improves articles, albeit through causing additional work for nominator, reviewer, and bystanders. Improving articles is what we are here for. Thanks to MelanieN for the stamina, and to Yoninah for the further improvement. --Pgallert (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Melanie, there are 2 pages of rules. The requirements are spelled out point by point in Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines, and that's what I use to review articles. Best, Yoninah (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Maybe that link should be called attention to a little more prominently. (Now that I have it called to my attention, I see there is a small-type "Further information" link at the DYK rules page. It's unlikely that many people would click on it, though.) People like me, who do not do this very often, are naturally going to think the requirements are the rules that appear at Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules, or for that matter at the template that appears when you start to comment on a nomination. The fact that there are two additional pages of "secret" requirements is not known to non-regulars here, either in submitting nominations or in doing the QPQ review. Anyhow, thanks for the help. --MelanieN (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. I'm sorry if that sounded harsh. I'm not criticizing you guys; you are doing your job as you see it, and a thankless job it is, I'm sure. (Thank you BTW.) My complaint is just that I wish all these extra requirements had been listed at Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules, so that I would have known what I was getting into. --MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
