Template:Did you know nominations/Vincent Ialenti

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Vincent Ialenti

(

)

[[File:|140px|Ialenti in 2021 ]]

Ialenti in 2021

... that in 2017, Vincent Ialenti (pictured) became the first anthropologist with a feature article in Physics Today, the flagship publication of the American Institute of Physics? Source: “Vincent Ialenti, a PhD candidate in , made history in October by becoming the first anthropologist with a feature article in Physics Today, the flagship publication of the American Institute of Physics.” Cornell University Anthropology department
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/LARIAT (platform)
- Comment: Alternate hooks welcome!

Created by Thriley (talk), Lemoncat1234 (talk), and 47.208.153.110 (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 19:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC).

Article is new enough and long enough. An interesting story, thank you for bringing it here. The hook is quite interesting. I have a few concerns with sourcing, however. There's quite a few sources used that are not fully independent from the author, and these are typically not sources we should use for anything besides besides biographical detail. For instance, content about what grants an academic has received might be worth including if an independent source comments on it, but when it's coming from a contributor profile that the subject likely wrote, it looks promotional even if that wasn't the intent. I'm uncertain about the hook as well; it's sourced to the web-page of a the Department he belonged to. For an exceptional claim, I'm not sure that's strong enough. I recommend pruning career detail that isn't supported by an independent source; there's enough material here, surely. I would be happy to give this another look. While you're at it, there's a little bit of WP:PROSELINE that's worth fixing too. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Thriley since they may have missed the review. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I will be taking care of this in the coming days. Thriley (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Thriley: Did you find time yet? (I know it's easy to get distracted ^^) –LordPeterII (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: Thank you for the reminder! Thriley (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Thriley: It's been over a week now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Despite multiple pings, the nominator hasn't only not addressed the concerns, but in fact hasn't edited the article since the day it was moved to mainspace. As such, the nomination is now marked for closure unless the concerns are resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I’ll tend to this today. Mind is foggy these last few weeks. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I have done a bit of trimming. What did you think of it now? Thriley (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 seems to have lost interest in this nom, so I'll yoink it :). Trim reads better; an IP reverted the trim but I brought it back. Still plently long enough, new enough. No close paraphrasing or non-neutrality detected. Image is freely licensed. Hook is fine. Maybe the promoting nominator could remove the relative clause to create more mystery and draw the reader in. Hook fact is directly cited and truthful. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)