Talk:The Miracle of the Bells (novel)

A fact from The Miracle of the Bells (novel) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 September 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the best-selling novel of 1947 was described by Time magazine as "one of the worst ever published"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Miracle of the Bells (book).

Wikipedia

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 Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the best-selling novel of 1947 was described as "badly written", "verbose" and "maudlin" but "almost impossible to put it down"? Source: Hackett, Alice Payne and Burke, James Henry (1977). 80 Years of Bestsellers: 1895–1975. New York: R. R. Bowker Company. pp. 129–151. ISBN 0-8352-0908-3 is the source for it being named the best-selling novel of 1947 by Publisher's Weekly.
This is the source for the review with the quoted language
alt 1 ... that the best-selling novel of 1947 was described by Time magazine as "one of the worst ever published?"? Time review
- Reviewed: Catechumen

Created by Cbl62 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Miracle of the Bells (book); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

I'll review this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article appears to meet all the criteria. Hooks are interesting; I like the first one better. The sources for the quotes are verified; AGF on the book source. Appears good to go! BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I agree the first hook is better. Cbl62 (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]