Template:Did you know nominations/Männergarten

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: rejected by PumpkinSky talk 10:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Männergarten

(

)

... that a Männergarten avoids couples to get in disagreement and is a nice example for gender specific marketing? Alt1
... that when IKEA introduced a Männergarten, The Week doubted wether this "had set retail shopping forward by three decades or set gender equality back by three decades"?
... that when Bier Esel (German for "beer ass inn") introduced a Männergarten, German otherwise quite serious daily FAZ told the story under the title "day care offer – have your husband being taken care of"?

Created/expanded by Serten (talk). Self nominated at 18:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC).

Well, let's see.

Article: 1. New enough. 2. Long enough. 3. a) Not neutral enough (I'd like to know who states that "Couples sometimes get into disagreement or loose each other based on different and gender-specific ways to shop and stroll.". And there's no "Criticism" section, although the sources provide examples of criticism) 3. b) It cites its sources (although the formatting of citation 2 is insufficient, and several other sources are formatted in German, needs to be in English. Example: "abgerufen am 15. Mai 2013"). 3 c) Seems okay with regards to copy-vio (some sources are off-line, and I don't speak French, so AGF on those) 4. Not a BLP, so okay on that point.

Hook: 1. Short enough. 2. a) I do not find the hook very exciting. It should be possible to dig a better hook from the article, which is on the short side, and somewhat list-y, more could be produced from the sources. 2 b) The hook fail on this point. It's not NPOV, and states this as if it is a fact. According to whom? I see from the sources that there is some criticism of this concept, but none of this criticism is reflected in the article. 2 c) The hook is not neutral, same as the article in that regard. Is this really a fact, or just something some unidentified person has stated?

Other: 1. Serten does not appear to have any previous DYKs 2. No image nominated.

Article points 3 a) and 3 b), and Hook points 2 a) and 2 c) needs to be fixed before this can proceed. In general, the article should be expanded more, so it explains things and reads better. A criticism section is dearly needed. Manxruler (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough reading and comment. I had one nomination for Männerparkplatz omn DYK, and I am a regular on the German DYK "Schon gewusst?". I will have a look on the language and quotation issues. With regard to the quarrels, thats based on a study, think I should show the source more clearly. I personally believe critism sections are bad, good articles have none of that, take Charles Manson - much more hmm critical behavior than one could imagine for tiny Männergarten but no special section ;) I try to have critical voices being elaborated more clearly, if any, I see more of a sort of satiric aspect a some self deprication than real critism. Serten (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

What I meant with you not having any previous DYKs, is that that means you don't have do a QPQ review ("... nominators who have five or more DYK credits and are nominating their own articles must review another article."). So that's a good thing.

Not everyone agrees that Männergarten (which as a non-English word should by written with italic type) is all that great. The cited article from The Week quotes:

"This is pathetic, says Irin Carmon at Jezebel. Of course guys prefer playing video games to buying sofas — "women probably would rather do a lot of other things, too." Treating men like "whining children" only makes them act that way, and reinforces the notion that "only women can do stuff like laundry."

and:

"Actually, there are a number of "loopholes," says Sarah Firshein at Curbed. What about gay couples, and who can navigate IKEA in 30 minutes? But the real question is whether Manland has "set retail shopping forward by three decades or set gender equality back by three decades — you decide."

That's criticism, and that should be reflected in the article

What does Charles Manson have to do with Männergarten? Manxruler (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Last in first out. If Manson does not have a specific critism section, no article at all should have one. However critism may and can be reflected in the article. I tried to do so and drafted another hook. Serten (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC).

I'm sorry. I'm not sure I quite understand the meaning of that statement, at all. That comparison doesn't make sense. What the Männergarten article needs is to reflect other views on the concept, rather than, like it is now, just stating that it's a really great idea. At least two of the sources in the article have views that are not just praise. And I think that those, less positive, views would be well placed in their own section. Anyway, whichever way you want to present them should be fine, as long as more than a single view is presented. Okay? Manxruler (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the alt hook, it's better, but: 1. The alt hook is too long (247 characters, needs to be 200 or less). 2. The bit of the hook that's a quote from the source needs to be presented as a quote, with "quotation marks". 3. You should link items such as IKEA and The World. 4. The World doesn't appear to be a "local journal". 5. It's confusing that the hook uses both Männergarten and Manland. 6. You need to end the hook with a question mark. Manxruler (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Lets not extend the Manson issue, Its just my POV that featured articles tend to have no separate "critism" section, its to be incorpated. I adjusted the hook and inserted some additions in the article. Serten (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's not. Manson isn't a featured article anyway. I'll continue the review tomorrow. Manxruler (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It's getting better. The alt hooks are usable, once they've been copy-edited a bit. Still a few things with the article, though. 1. There are two points in the article that lacks citations. I've tagged both of those places, so they're easy to fix. 2. The people making statements in The World doesn't just refer to the buzzer as part of the comparison with children, it's the whole concept of men supposedly not being able to take part in shopping activities etc. That should be made clearer. Manxruler (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

(watching) Don't you think that "a portmanteau of Kindergarten " needs to be added - for any unprepared reader to understand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, yes. I guess it would draw a few eyes, which is some of the point. Alt 1 could probably work without that addition, but Alt 2 would certainly need that. The original hook is not workable any which way it is tweaked. Manxruler (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Further, Alt 1 is false, as it is not The Week that's behind that question, it's "Sarah Firshein at Curbed", quoted by The Week. Manxruler (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as this article has issues which prevents it from being a DYK, and the nominator hasn't done any work on it for nine days, or replied here for 10 days, I think it should be dropped. Manxruler (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)