Talk:Mariska Aldrich
Latest comment: 27 days ago by SL93 in topic Did you know nomination
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Mariska Aldrich appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 June 2026 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Free image
editAvailable in this book. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
edit- 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. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
( )
Aldrich and her dog Fels
- ... that opera singer Mariska Aldrich (pictured) is the namesake of one of the largest sound libraries in the United States?
- Source: Stettler, Jeremiah (April 20, 2000). "Music artifacts hijacked?". The Herald Journal.
- ALT1: ... that opera singer Mariska Aldrich had a prize winning German shepherd (pictured) who excelled in police dog competition? Source: *"Star of Opera Owns Champ Police Dog". The San Francisco Call Bulletin. June 17, 1919. p. 11.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Eugenia metro station
- Comment: moved to article space on May 1
4meter4 (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC).
This is a preliminary review as I haven't been able to check the entire article yet, but Earwig checks out. The article was nominated as "moved to article space on May 1", but it appears to have already been in mainspace before then: instead, what is being detected is a 5x expansion, please confirm what was the intention. QPQ done. Both of the hooks have issues: ALT0 is superlative but only has a single source, so it needs more sources to confirm it, and in any case is only mentioned in the lede rather than the body. ALT1 is mentioned in the article and verified in the source, but is only mentioned in the picture caption, and I'm not sure if DYK hooks must be found in the body as opposed to footnotes or captions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:51, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: 1) The nomination template used was a 5x expansion nomination (which this went way beyond). That was the clear choice in this nomination as I submitted it as a 5x expansion (it says "5x expanded by 4meter4") 2) The comment section (not the nomination template) said "move to main space" was done to acknowledge I worked on this outside the timeline in user space and then moved the material into article space on May 1. It was not meant to communicate this wasn't a 5x expansion, only that I built the article in user space as a form of transparency. 3) We have run hooks found in captions in the past. I don't think talking about her dog show win outside of the caption is best for the article. Where would that content go? It certainly doesn't belong in any of the article sections on her music or film career. It diverts from what is most essential about her. This is more just a fun aside, that is quirky enough to work well in a hook. And readers can easily see the image, read the caption, and find the inline citation in the article. This is not the time to raise a point not clearly forbidden at WP:DYKCRIT and which wouldn't serve the interests of the article or the reader. 4) The article does indeed address the library in the body at the very end of the article in the section "Later life, death, and Mariska Aldrich Archive". There is an entire paragraph there. I didn't feel it necessary to reiterate that she is the namesake of the library at that point in the article because frankly it is obvious (ie the sky is blue) that a library founded by her daughter after her mother's death named the "Mariska Aldrich Archive" was named after her mother Mariska Aldrich. Again this would not serve the article. That paragraph also contains the largest sound library hook fact but expressed in different words by describing the historical nature of the collection. It would be redundant to use the word "sound library" again in that paragraph, and less descriptive of the collection. Some of the requests being made here are not only pedantic but are editorially poor choices. It's sufficient that the lede has the hook fact with the citation, we don't need to state the obvious and insult the intelligence of the reader later by stating the obvious.4meter4 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- My understanding is that it is discouraged to have things only mentioned in the lede, or for ledes to have references, especially for longer articles like this. Even if they arne't technically prohibited, they do go against common practice. For the dog mention, I wasn't asking for a long detailed description in the article: one or two sentences about the dog should suffice. Finally, my main concern with ALT0 wasn't even that it was only directly stated in the lede, but rather that it's based on a single source. WP:DYKFIRST says that superlative hooks need to have strong sourcing, and one source probably doesn't cut it even if it is a more modest claim ("one of the largest"). I am leaning towards approving ALT1 once this is good to go, but for now my concerns remain. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
- MOS:CITELEAD Is clear that citations in the lead are allowed, and there is no prohibition against having some original content in the lead provided its cited. That's clear from the language at MOS. In this case I chose to focus on a different aspect of size as already explained in the body of the article. Making another size claim there is overkill. There are good editorial reasons to structure the article the way I did. Further, this isn't a first claim. I don't particularly see a good reason to question the claim from an independent newspaper written by a journalist, particularly when it isn't making too big of a claim. It seems like you are going beyond what is normal here in terms of applying WP:DYKCRIT. As regards to the dog, I don't see a good place under the section headings to mention that event as the article is focused on her performance career, and that content is not about that. It works best where it is. I would like input from other regular editors at DYK in regards to the need to move this content out of picture caption. I don't think this serves the article. Nor do I think this should hold up review.4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
- My understanding is that it is discouraged to have things only mentioned in the lede, or for ledes to have references, especially for longer articles like this. Even if they arne't technically prohibited, they do go against common practice. For the dog mention, I wasn't asking for a long detailed description in the article: one or two sentences about the dog should suffice. Finally, my main concern with ALT0 wasn't even that it was only directly stated in the lede, but rather that it's based on a single source. WP:DYKFIRST says that superlative hooks need to have strong sourcing, and one source probably doesn't cut it even if it is a more modest claim ("one of the largest"). I am leaning towards approving ALT1 once this is good to go, but for now my concerns remain. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: 1) The nomination template used was a 5x expansion nomination (which this went way beyond). That was the clear choice in this nomination as I submitted it as a 5x expansion (it says "5x expanded by 4meter4") 2) The comment section (not the nomination template) said "move to main space" was done to acknowledge I worked on this outside the timeline in user space and then moved the material into article space on May 1. It was not meant to communicate this wasn't a 5x expansion, only that I built the article in user space as a form of transparency. 3) We have run hooks found in captions in the past. I don't think talking about her dog show win outside of the caption is best for the article. Where would that content go? It certainly doesn't belong in any of the article sections on her music or film career. It diverts from what is most essential about her. This is more just a fun aside, that is quirky enough to work well in a hook. And readers can easily see the image, read the caption, and find the inline citation in the article. This is not the time to raise a point not clearly forbidden at WP:DYKCRIT and which wouldn't serve the interests of the article or the reader. 4) The article does indeed address the library in the body at the very end of the article in the section "Later life, death, and Mariska Aldrich Archive". There is an entire paragraph there. I didn't feel it necessary to reiterate that she is the namesake of the library at that point in the article because frankly it is obvious (ie the sky is blue) that a library founded by her daughter after her mother's death named the "Mariska Aldrich Archive" was named after her mother Mariska Aldrich. Again this would not serve the article. That paragraph also contains the largest sound library hook fact but expressed in different words by describing the historical nature of the collection. It would be redundant to use the word "sound library" again in that paragraph, and less descriptive of the collection. Some of the requests being made here are not only pedantic but are editorially poor choices. It's sufficient that the lede has the hook fact with the citation, we don't need to state the obvious and insult the intelligence of the reader later by stating the obvious.4meter4 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
Coming here from DYK talk: For ALT0, I've never heard of DYK discouraging a lead-only item. Is Naruto confusing DYK with GAN? I think it's fine, so I agree with 4meter4 here. However, as Naruto seems more concerned with a dearth of sources, fulfilling their request for a second source seems reasonable. It is difficult to accept only one source for a superlative claim. As for ALT1, I agree with Naruto; the caption is way too long. In the past, I used to love writing long captions like this, until other editors/reviewers told me to knock it off. It wasn't just one editor either, it was like six. I think Naruto has a point about moving some of the info from the caption into the body ("one or two sentences about the dog should suffice"). Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
- Moved as requested. I guess it works. I liked it better in the other format, but we can't always get what we want.4meter4 (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
- To respond to the above, were you able to find additional sources confirming the "one of the largest" claims? If that can't be done, we will just have to go with ALT1 as my concerns have been satisfied. To answer Viriditas's response, the "only in the lede" thing, as far as I am aware is more of a general editing thing rather than a DYK thing. It's not prohibited nor encouraged, but my understanding from experience is that it's not considered ideal. Same with the referencing thing, which from what I remember is neither prohibited nor encouraged, but is usually reserved for contentious rather than uncontroversial statements. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, I could hunt down another source, but I don't want to take the time to do it. My time is committed elsewhere. Just go with alt1. 4meter4 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
Approving ALT1 only as cited inline and verified in the source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, I could hunt down another source, but I don't want to take the time to do it. My time is committed elsewhere. Just go with alt1. 4meter4 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
- To respond to the above, were you able to find additional sources confirming the "one of the largest" claims? If that can't be done, we will just have to go with ALT1 as my concerns have been satisfied. To answer Viriditas's response, the "only in the lede" thing, as far as I am aware is more of a general editing thing rather than a DYK thing. It's not prohibited nor encouraged, but my understanding from experience is that it's not considered ideal. Same with the referencing thing, which from what I remember is neither prohibited nor encouraged, but is usually reserved for contentious rather than uncontroversial statements. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
- Moved as requested. I guess it works. I liked it better in the other format, but we can't always get what we want.4meter4 (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
