Talk:Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 10:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a biography of Jerzy Kosinski was published five years after his death? Source: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-05-12-bk-3077-story.html
  • ALT1: ... that one of the reviewers of Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography argued that the book is both neutral but also an "apologia" and "justification of the misdeeds of a brilliantly flawed friend" of the author? Source: see https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-05-12-bk-3077-story.html
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/American Colossus: Big Bill Tilden and the Creation of Modern Tennis
  • Comment: I am having trouble coming up with a hook. First one is boring, hope the second one is more interesting.

Created by Piotrus (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 512 past nominations.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC).

• Article is well sourced and neutral. It's new enough and long enough. QPQ looks to be underway at Template:Did you know nominations/American Colossus: Big Bill Tilden and the Creation of Modern Tennis. I agree that the hooks could be more interesting, and I think it's because it glosses over why this person is notable. (Both in the hook and in the article body.) Following the links the article about the man himself, there's probably a way to describe at least one aspect of what earned him coverage in reliable sources. Either his fiction, his personal life, or both. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• Hey, this still has a lot of potential. I wanted to check back in to see when you have time to work on this again. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Giving a ping to @Piotrus:. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Shooterwalker, Sorry, my watchlist is not usable (too big), so I can see only pings. Do you have any suggestions for a more interesting hook? I am open to ideas, but as I said, I can't think of anything better, and I think the proposed hooks are "good enough" for DYK rules. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That's ok, Piotrus. I think it's hard to come up with this because the article doesn't really summarize the contents of the book. The article summarizes several reviews of the book, but we don't have the context of what they're reviewing.

Not to create too much more work, but would it be possible to get a short summary of the book in the contents section? It could be similar to the main Jerzy Kosinski article, plus even one sentence about the viewpoint/thesis of the author. If that's too much of a pain, plan B would be to scrape something from the review section. I can do my best to come up with something, but it would definitely be easier with more about the contents of the book. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, The problem is that the reviews do not, as far as I recall, provide any comprehensive information on the book's contents, which I assume is a biography of Kosinski, and the reviewers assume everyone will figure that out, I guess. They do not talk about chapter structure or such, just occasionally engage with some parts of his biography presented in the book the reviewer found interesting. And there is the issue of trying to make this article (and hook) be about the book and not about Kosinski's biography, which after all is a different article... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That's okay. We can work without it. I think the hook would end up overlapping with aspects of the subject of the book, but let me see what I can come up with. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus How about this:

• ALT1a: ... that Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography described its subject as a "liar", and yet, one reviewer felt that the author's "studiously neutral position ends up sounding like an apologia for Kosinski"?

It leaves out a lot, but hopefully refines the original idea to invite more curiosity. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, Sure, it's likely more interesting that what I came up with. I've no problem "adopting" it so you can approve it :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I approve ALT1a. (I also don't mind if another editor wants to come by with further revisions.) Shooterwalker (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Piotrus and Shooterwalker: An article comprising of one lead sentence, two single-sentence sections and one six paragraph Reception section comprising 92% of the article is a unmitigated WP:DYKCOMPLETE fail.--Launchballer 07:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Launchballer, Nope. The article pretty comprehensively covers the topic; there is not much else to write about it. I scoured the sources for anything relevant and it is already here. You can't call an article incomplete if there is no source covering other stuff, whatever that other stuff would be. Catalogue bibliographic information + reception is all that exists on this and all that we can therefore include. PS. That said, I'll expand the lead a bit more, since it is too short and did not cover the aforementioned reception. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a bit better; I've knocked together the two short sections per MOS:OVERSECTION. I'd question whether merely stating the obvious is enough given "an article about a book that fails to summarize the book's contents [...] is likely to be rejected as insufficiently comprehensive", but I'll hear from another promoter. I also don't see how any of the hooks on this page meet WP:DYKINT; I can suggest the following: ALT2: ... that a New York Times reviewer felt that Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography was perhaps "written in unusual haste" despite being written five years after Kosinski's death?, but you'll need an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 08:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Launchballer, Citation added but isn't repeated the same footnote in two consecutive sentences also against MoS? And tnx for the hook idea, it is fine and we can consider it as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I know this might take a significant amount of research, but is it possible to skim the primary source, and offer some more detail about the book's contents? I imagine it overlaps with his actual life story, and we wouldn't need a full read to gather that. Reading the bio would be more to look for a few examples of the author's overall thesis and tone. A couple sentences in this article would do it. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, It's possible, and probably should be done for GA and certainly for FA, neither of which I am however interested in taking this article to. There's also a question whether sourcing a plot to the work itself is or isn't OR; I've heard different opinions on this.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus Sorry this process has been drawn out. I still think ALT1a is fine, and nothing against ALT2 either. Ideally, the article would try to summarize the author's thesis and tone, even just with one or two sentences. But I believe it is at least close to meeting WP:DYKCOMPLETE, as is. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Piotrus I agree with you. This article meets the standard for WP:DYKCOMPLETE, and more detail would only be needed for a WP:GA. I want to reiterate that this DYK is ready, running with ALT1a. (But ALT2 would be a fine backup choice.) Shooterwalker (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Shooterwalker cannot approve their own hook; I'll be promoting ALT2 unless ALT1a is desperately needed, in which case it needs an independent review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I still don't see how ALT1a meets WP:DYKINT.--Launchballer 16:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

But is it otherwise valid Launchballer? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Er, no. "Liar" needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 17:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)