Template:Did you know nominations/Jonas Wood

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Jonas Wood[edit]

(
)

Created by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 15:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC).

  • Shouldn't it be "transcended"? Cbl62 (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I am struggling with this article. Is this person somehow famous, or at least notable? It seems to be, because he appears to be mentioned in a number of notable sources. So why do I have no idea why he's notable? Transcending art movements? Who doesn't do that? Surely there is something less ephemeral that Wood is known for? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I get that, it's the hook I'm worried about. Every artist transcends art movements, that kind of goes with the territory these days. And looking over the examples I can find, I'm also struggling to see what is transcending about the work, it looks an awful lot like the stuff hanging in every gallery I visit. Is there nothing else special about this person or his work that actually differentiates him? Here, how about this... Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Review @TonyTheTiger: The hook about transcending. It's not sourced, and by that I mean there is not a link beside it to the quote that says he does, and you need that for DYK. Suggestion: Something like ALT3 " ... that psychologist Jonas Wood explores the psychological effects of various living spaces through art? " Okay so... I do not like the Art Review cite (6). I do not think it says "the result is an impression of" sincerity, and I have racked myself to reword it. I can't find it. So, those are two issues. I have done some editing in the article and it is otherwise ready for DYK. ~ R.T.G 19:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that but DYK principle rule is sourcing, particularly the hook. ~ R.T.G 10:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Hooks absolutely can be summations and/or paraphrases of sources, as is the case here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
DYK Rules:"3. Cited hook – The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article. (See more information under The hook, below.) Facts should have an inline citation. The article as a whole should use inline, cited sources.

a) The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience. b) Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient." ~ R.T.G 13:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Good question. Well the bit in our article isn't exact, it doesn't exactly say "results" or "perception", close as that is, and it makes for a good edit if you can get a sentence like that more precise without adding a load of ifs and ands and buts.. But.. I found him to be saying that Jonas Wood was really insistent about his work and that he, the reporter, appreciated that insistence. But writing that into the WP article would not fit because that is my own abstraction. You should disregard this one for the DYK because it is only semantic, however the lead sentence really should be sourceable in the main body, and the hook must be directly sourced. And I don't know what way to write a sentence about that source(6). So just leave it I guess. But fix something into the lead and use a hook that is quotable and it's all done. ~ R.T.G 10:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, don't feel the need to respond about the cite (6). I am just being conversational about that. Transcendence is a connotatively spiritual reference. It implies things of that sort. I do not see that sort of implication in the sources. You could say, Jonas Woods art is not defined by a single genre. Isn't that? ~ R.T.G 17:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like to get some closure on this one. RTG has a problem with the original hook's cite, I had a problem with the hook itself but in retrospect I see I was simply reading it incorrectly (I think). Anyway we now have two ALTs we can choose among. RTG, I don't think your ALT is correct unless I missed something; did he actually work as a psychologist at any point? If so, I'm happy going with ALT3, otherwise I propose ALT2. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I have confused the level of his training, but he does not have to be paid to be one. It is kind of misleading taken out of context, but in this context, that he is psychologically evaluating, I suppose that is even paid psychology work... (part of the article is the insistence that the guy is serious) But, he is a bachelor of the arts in psychology. I'm not sure how that can be construed... sorry. He's a "Psychology major" that is for sure... ~ R.T.G 10:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Full DYK review, no issues. ~ R.T.G 12:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Jonas_Wood&oldid=1017022012"