Template:Did you know nominations/List of hazing deaths in the United States

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) 20:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

List of hazing deaths in the United States

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Richard Swanson's 1959 hazing death by choking on a quarter pound piece of raw liver was the inspiration for the 1977 film Fraternity Row?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Leigh Leigh

Created by Bali88 (talk). Self nominated at 18:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC).

• The article is long and new enough, but the hook needs a bolded word and the article do not have enough citations. -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I added a bolded word, you have only one issue to fix -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the article doesn't have enough citations". Can you explain that? It appears to be fully cited to me. Bali88 (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• @PapaJeckloy, Bali88: Responding from the teahouse, I am unaware of past discussion about the procedure when a reviewer has failed to pass an article on some basis, and that basis appears flawed. In short, I too, after looking at the article, fail to understand the reviewer's concern. Every single entry on the list is cited using an inline citation, and the sources appear reliable. I'm sure we often have people protesting a reviewer's call for more or better citations, when that criticism is legitimate, but that does not appear to be the case here. In light of the entry's substantial sourcing, this criticism is unclear and needs to be clarified or discounted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your feedback Bali88 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Bali and Fuhgettaboutit: the referencing is fine. What is missing right now, however, is prose in the lead. The DYK rules require at least 1500 characters of prose outside tables (so the prose in the tables doesn't count). If we can get the lead of this list up to 1500 characters, then it should be ready for a new review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  I think that is placing too much emphasis on the letter rather than the spirit of the rules; there is plenty of nice prose in the tables that would allow it to qualify for DYK if it was presented in a less reader-friendly format (take that, readers!). Belle (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, I feel like that's a bit pedantic. The whole point is to make sure that the article is long enough. I put the information in the tables for the ease of the reader. If I had written the exact information without putting it in a table, it would count as 1500 words. If I write a 1500 word lead, I think it would take away from the article. I guess I could put a bunch of historical information about hazing in the lead, but people are clicking on it to read what's in the body of the article, which is substantial, not the lead. Bali88 (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• With the amount of prose in the (very well developed) list, 1500 characters is negligible. A definition of hazing, singling out some of the earliest and/or most controversial incidents, and negative effects would easily cross that bar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think I'll get a second opinion on that. I've just never seen a list article with a long lead. Also, all the information that I could put in the lead is already covered by hazing and Hazing in Greek letter organizations. If they want to know the history of hazing, they could read those articles, it seems redundant to also put it in this one, and it sort of turns it into a hybrid article: part list, part history of hazing article (which is an article that already exists). Also, I stand by the earlier point that if I had done this article with the exact same information, but without the graphs, it would count. It just doesn't make sense to beef up the lead to fit some arbitrary standard. Bali88 (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, now that I've finished the lead, it ended up being, by my count, >1500. Either way, it should pass inspection. Bali88 (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• @PapaJeckloy:, would you mind signing off on the article? I believe that all of the issues have been fixed. :-) Bali88 (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

All issues are fixed, needs final sign off.

• Hook is interesting, online cited, neutral. New enough, long enough, referenced to reliable sources, inline citations, no copy-vio issues or close paraphrasing. Article is neutral. Nominator has completed other review. Ready for DYK Cpuser20 (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)