Template:Did you know nominations/Wisconsin School (diplomatic history)
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Wisconsin School (diplomatic history)
[edit]- ... that the Wisconsin School should not be conflated with the New Left?
Created by Wasted Time R (talk). Self-nominated at 12:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC).
As a social scientist myself, I don't think this is a good hook. It features two terms that aren't really well-known to laymen, and while they appear to be connected, the connection isn't really clear in the hook, nor would the connection be clear to those not familiar with the field. A new, more broadly-acceptable hook may need to be proposed here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the comment. Yes, this hook was deliberately intended to be short and mysterious, in order to get people to think "What on earth is this talking about?" and click through to find out. It's meant to be "hooky", to use the term from WP:DYKHOOK. The alternative would be something like:
- ALT1: ... that while sometimes allied, the "Wisconsin School" of diplomatic history and the New Left embodied different strains of thought during the 1960s?
- If you prefer that one, it's fine with me. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think ALT1 is better, though still somewhat obtuse (in that, again, it's rather inaccessible to non-social scientists). How about a hook specifically on the Wisconsin School instead? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: How about then:
- ALT2: ... that the "Wisconsin School" is a school of thought which uses economic interpretations to explain much of American diplomatic history?
- This should be understandable by non-social scientists. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think that works thanks to the contrast (while the relationship between economics and diplomacy is obvious to social scientists, it's generally less so for laymen). I'm a bit busy right now so the full review will follow soon. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think ALT1 is better, though still somewhat obtuse (in that, again, it's rather inaccessible to non-social scientists). How about a hook specifically on the Wisconsin School instead? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The article was new enough at the time of the nomination. It is mostly cited to offline sources which are accepted in good faith, and I was not able to find any copyright violations. A QPQ has been provided. As I mentioned above, ALT2 is the best option among the three proposed hooks. I would accept ALT2 in good faith, but the sentence that describes it does not have a footnote, and DYK rules state that article hook fact sentences must be cited. Although I'd assume that they're cited by references 1 and 2, reference 2 does not seem to explicitly mention the hook fact. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: I've added an explicit cite to this in the article – it is as you surmised in fn 1. You will probably be able to see the source online at https://books.google.com/books?id=3BOIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA43. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, this should be good to go now. Reference verified. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
