Template:Did you know nominations/Oli London

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 Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
In addition to BLP concerns on the part of the hook and article, the article was not eligible for DYK as it had not received a 5x expansion.

Oli London

(

)

... that the South Korean singer Oli London has been criticised for identifying as transracial? Source: Smith, Ryan (29 January 2022). "'Transracial' Influencer Oli London Says Trolls Turned Him Into a Recluse". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 12 April 2022. Retrieved 2 May 2022.

Created by User:Nicholas Michael Halim (talk). Self-nominated at 00:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC).

Comment: Not a full review, but I don't see the article or the hook meeting WP:BLP in terms of sourcing or due weight. Request that the reviewer keep an eye out for this in carrying out their assessment. Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not fail pages often without an opportunity to cure, but this one has a lot of issues where fixing them is going to be problematic.

Not long enough: The page does not read as a 5x expansion in DYKcheck. From time of nomination back to last edit before expansion is 1764 to 5617 characters readable prose. This is a 3.18x expansion. It still is not 5x; in fact, it is now at 4892 characters. A lot of work is going into this page but this is not being addressed. You would need 8,820 or more characters readable prose.
BLP concerns: I use User:Headbomb/unreliable, a script that highlights unreliable references. It highlights five references in red, the least reliable:

One from Blaze Media: "considered generally unreliable for facts".
One self-published tweet (acceptable as a source of information about the subject).
A YouTube video by Ali Dawah, whose other videos look like a lot of clickbait.
A site called Sportskeeda, an Indian sports news website that, per our article on it, uses content "procured from contracted, freelance and occasional writers".
A YouTube video from Rappler, which is considered reliable.

There are also 11 yellow references, the next tier of concern.

The Daily Mirror (no consensus on reliability)
Insider (reliable for culture topics but not others)
The Spectator (which consists of opinion columns)
Newsweek (per WP:RSP, "Unlike articles before 2013, post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable")

A substantial amount of material needs resourcing or rethinking. Leek is correct to be concerned. This is a high-volume, high controversy BLP (34,000 views in 30 days). There's a good chance it has undue weight on the identity question. Biographies of living people need better sourcing than this across the board.

Nicholas Michael Halim, I recognize this is your first nomination to DYK (with one existing credit for an article someone else nominated), and I can understand a failure to recognize the 5x expansion issue. (You indeed did not need a QPQ.) However, I am quite surprised to see an article in this state from someone with 33 GAs and 8 FLs. This should not be a DYK and indeed cannot be as too short. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Yes, this is my first DYK nomination. I am sorry that you have to fail it. I will nominate one of my GA articles for DYK sometimes. Thank you. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nicholas Michael Halim: A reminder that only recently promoted GAs qualify for DYK. Hopefully the lessons you learn here get put back into the article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)