Template:Did you know nominations/Lineage (anthropology)

Lineage (anthropology)

(

)

~~... that lineage societies, traced through maternal, paternal, or ambilineal lines, can be used to determine inheritance rights, social status, and even rituals in some cultures?~~

Source: www.choicedna.com/exploring-the-difference-between-paternal-and-maternal

ALT1: ... that some cultures around the world practice matrilineal lineage, where ancestry is traced exclusively through the mother in the maternal line?
~~Source: www.palomar.edu/anthro/kinship/kinship_2.htm~~
Reviewed:

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC).

Striking ALT1, as it does not contain the nominated article nor any reasonable place to link to it. You need a further 104 characters for this to become eligible.--Laun chba ller 15:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer:, 104 characters where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me Da Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

In the article, and sign your posts.--Laun chba ller 16:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Needed to anyway for some minor stuff, how is it now? @Launchballer: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Still needs another 42 characters. You should consider installing WP:DYKcheck so you can check yourself.--Laun chba ller 17:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Now added some stuff about the 2 types of ambilineal, which I may expand into there own sectrions at some point. Hows this now @Launchballer: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me Da Wikipedian (talk • contribs)

How are you remembering to put my username in your comments and not- anyway, length requirement met. Full review needed.--Laun chba ller 20:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you do said review, and if not who and when will do it @Launchballer:Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It won't be me any time soon, I have a policy of doing my QPQs oldest first. Any other editor is free to review this in the interim.--Laun chba ller 07:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - n

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Nominated in time. 5x expansion. No QPQ need. Current hook as written is not reflected in the text of the article. Another hook please. --evrik ^(talk) 01:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Nom is blocked and based on behavior likely a sock (but I haven't figured out who yet). Not to mention multiple issues with submission noted above. We have enough work to do, we don't need to be wasting time on this. RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I can however respond, here, and I will. It was in the article when it was submitted. Anyways, here is a new one:Did you know that lineages often have religious significance, determining ones religion and there role in that religion
https://collegeofarms.euclid.int/tracing-roots-the-significance-of-family-trees-in-traditional-societies/
. Also, I do not appreciate unfounded allegations by @RoySmith: that I am wasting their time and a sock. Thank you. @Evrik @Me Da Wikipedian: (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I am posting the above from this this post. The user has suggested:

Alt2 ... that lineages often have religious significance, determining ones religion and their role in that religion?

Source: "Links between childhood religious upbringing and current religious identity". Pew Research Center. -

I am AGF that this user will be welcomed back to the fold.

--evrik ^(talk) 21:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Evrik, to ask for feedback on this nomination at WT:DYK, archive that thread upon receiving negative feedback from Rjjiii, and then approve the nomination without fixing the issues raised is pretty terrible conduct, all things considered. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: my apologies if I have caused some confusion or consternation. Once the author posted an alternate hook I found reasonable, I considered the discussion there moot. Also, in fairness, I archived a bunch of discussions at the same time. As for the comments made by @Rjjiii:, well I didn't consider them negative as much as a suggestion. Honestly, I think the piece was overcited. I did read the passage and thought it matched the citations listed. I have changed one word and I think it all matches up. Hope this addresses your concerns. --evrik ^(talk) 04:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Me Da Wikipedian:, where does the cited source discuss religion? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

their reply Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it actually this source: "Links between childhood religious upbringing and current religious identity". Pew Research Center. --evrik ^(talk) 04:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to put this out there for a new review. --evrik ^(talk) 04:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)