Template:Did you know nominations/Megan Rosenbloom

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) 06:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Megan Rosenbloom

• ... that as a member of the The Anthropodermic Book Project, librarian Megan Rosenbloom (pictured) can tell you if a book is bound in human skin? Source: https://anthropodermicbooks.org/about/the-team/

Created by Jessamyn (talk). Self-nominated at 00:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC).

• While an interesting hook, I have concerns about the article's writing. In particular, it reads like a promotional peace for Rosenbloom rather than an encyclopedic article. In addition, the sourced used is Mentalfloss, and I'm not sure if it's a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Note: Susmuffin has since added an {{advertisement}} tag to the article, meaning the nomination cannot be approved until that is addressed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• OK, I'll see if I can find someone to give the article a style read through. I changed the source link for the DYK to be a link to the project that Rosenbloom works on, I wasn't sure if that was too much like a link to her own web page (even though that is not her site). Thanks for the review. Jessamyn (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• I made some changes and others made some changes and I think the article reads much better now and not promotional. Jessamyn (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, the article looks better now. However, I do have some concerns about the coverage in the article. Specifically, the coverage in the article appears to be more about the project she's part of instead. There are some articles about her used as sources, but I'm not sure if they really establish her notability. I'll do the full review soon, but I'll need to ask for a second opinion on the subject's notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Full review needed. It's been over three weeks, so a new reviewer is probably needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

It would also be nice if we got some input on if the subject meets notability guidelines, as right now I have doubts. I'd recommend nominating this for AfD to gain consensus either way. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Narutolovehinata5, if you think it should be nominated for AfD, then please do so. That's the only way to get a definitive opinion on notability, which you seem to think is needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Overall: Good image. Should be used with the hook. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)