Template:Did you know nominations/Global Methodist Church
- 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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Global Methodist Church
... that the Global Methodist Church is part of a planned divorce over marriage?Source: "The United Methodist Church is expected to split into two denominations in an attempt to end a years-long, contentious fight over same-sex marriage" ([1])ALT1: ... that the Global Methodist Church is expected to separate from the United Methodist Church?Source: "The United Methodist Church is expected to split into two denominations in an attempt to end a years-long, contentious fight over same-sex marriage" ([2])
Created by Pbritti (talk). Self-nominated at 22:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC).
- Comment (not a review): I like the clever wordplay of the first hook. Thoughts on replacing "planned" with "proposed" – resulting in "proposed divorce over marriage" – to get a little more subtle wordplay on marriage proposal? DanCherek (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that the Global Methodist Church is part of a proposed divorce over marriage? Thanks, DanCherek.
while the article is over 1,500 prose characters, I'm going to be a stickler and say that this is still a stub. Around half the article is in the lead, and much of the lead contains information not reflected in the body. I reassessed and stub-tagged the article—that'll need to be cleared before I move ahead with the review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron, while the things you mentioned are not generally relevant to identifying an article as a stub, I have expanded the article accordingly and information from the lede to the body. Let me know if you find it sufficient or if you want more before considering the article a suitable "start" class. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for cooperating! Moving on, the article was created from a redir and nominated in time and is neutral, although I'm requesting a second opinion on the sourcing. The article seems to be plagiarism free, and a QPQ has been done. As for the hook, I'm not sure it quite checks out—is the church expected to break away? Because the article just says that a vote is planned and expected. Once we clear those two up, we're good to go. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Not entirely sure what the concern on the sourcing is; there are multiple reputable sources. Also, the lede is fairly clear that this is a planned schism, as the hook says. While I appreciate the review, I am dissatisfied with your effort. Please let me know if I can do anything else for you, even if you're passing off this particular review. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Isn't there a difference between "planned" (alt1) and "expected" (alt0)? planned implies it may or may not happen, expected is like forecasting—at least, that's how i read it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Merriam-Webster considers them definitionally synonymous terms (see definition 2). Again, I can't help but feel like there was a disappointing lack of effort put into this review. My apologies for my frustration, but I put effort into this article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- My mistake, then—i'm sorry to hear the review didn't meet your expectations, i know you did put a lot of work into the article. Someone else will finish the review in a short while, I hope. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Merriam-Webster considers them definitionally synonymous terms (see definition 2). Again, I can't help but feel like there was a disappointing lack of effort put into this review. My apologies for my frustration, but I put effort into this article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Isn't there a difference between "planned" (alt1) and "expected" (alt0)? planned implies it may or may not happen, expected is like forecasting—at least, that's how i read it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Not entirely sure what the concern on the sourcing is; there are multiple reputable sources. Also, the lede is fairly clear that this is a planned schism, as the hook says. While I appreciate the review, I am dissatisfied with your effort. Please let me know if I can do anything else for you, even if you're passing off this particular review. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron, while the things you mentioned are not generally relevant to identifying an article as a stub, I have expanded the article accordingly and information from the lede to the body. Let me know if you find it sufficient or if you want more before considering the article a suitable "start" class. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Full review needed by new reviewer. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Interesting article, Pbritti. You could place it in the WP:LGBT project. I really like ALT2 - it is very clever and conveys the same meaning as the other hooks, but will probably draw in some more people. Earwig's is not concerning (copy paste from Wikipedia, not the other way around), the article is decidedly start class, referencing including the hook information is good. New enough, long enough... I think ALT2 is good to go.- One small problem that makes me prefer ALT2, and may be what theleekycauldron was trying to communicate earlier, is that the anticipated schism is not stated in the article, but it is stated in the sources. By that, I mean: The article says it's proposed, which doesn't support the very true but slightly different statement that it's anticipated or expected to go through! That can be easily fixed - I'll probably come back to the article soon and add that information - but ALT2 is punchier, so I think it's preferable either way. Urve (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Promoting ALT2 to Prep 2 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)