Template:Did you know nominations/Chiltern Firehouse

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 Yoninah (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Chiltern Firehouse

(

)

... ~~that Chiltern Firehouse, "London’s hottest celebrity hangout", has a secret smoking room, a VVVIP bar and a waiting list for the waiting list?~~

ALT1:... that patrons of Chiltern Firehouse, "London’s hottest celebrity hangout", include Adele, David Beckham, Bono, Bill Clinton, Linsday Lohan and Katy Perry?
Reviewed: The Hippodrome, Aldershot

Created by Edwardx (talk), JamKaftan (talk), Zigzig20s (talk), and Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 17:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC).

Two issues: (1) Most of the references are bare URLs and need to be properly formatted. (2) It seems that one of the creating editors recently classified this as a Stub. However, per DYK Reviewing guide The article must not be a stub. This requires a judgement call, since there is no mechanical stub definition. If the article is not a stub, ensure that it is correctly marked as a non-stub, by removing any stub template(s) in the article, and changing any talk-page assessments to start-class or higher.— Maile (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for such a quick response. The bare URLs aren't mine, but I'll endeavour to fix them. And un-stub it. And do the QPQ review. Edwardx (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have un-stubbed it. Nobody has mentioned that it was virtually an advert for the restaurant. It even had a number for reservations! I have severely trimmed it in that respect. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

And we are going to need a new hook... Philafrenzy (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Verifying that the stub has been removed. I tried to run the tool Reflinks on the bare URLs, but the tool just hangs and won't do anything for me. So, I guess you need to do the references one by one. This is not a review by me, by the way. I just mentioned what caught my eye at first look. — Maile (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

QPQ review done. Edwardx (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I got Reflinks to work, so the bare URLs are fixed. Now a complete review is needed. — Maile (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Neither of the existing hooks is now in the article as a lot of the promotional puff has been removed. How about:

ALT2:... that London restaurant the Chiltern Firehouse includes a fireman's pole in the dining room?

ALT3:... that checking in for a meal at London restaurant the Chiltern Firehouse was described as like arriving at a Scientology meeting?

ALT4:... that the bookings policy at London restaurant the Chiltern Firehouse was described as like something "borrowed from the North Korean tourist board."? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

New review: I take it on trust from Edwardx above that the QPQ is OK. New enough (created 17 June, nom 24 June) and long enough. ALT2 checks out with online citation #11. ALT3 checks out with online citation #18. ALT4 checks out with online citation #10. No problems with disambig links or with access to external links (except one, see issue below). The article text is objective, neutral and fully referenced. Spot checks revealed no sources of copyvio or close paraphrasing. Issue: ~~Citation #4 is a deadlink. When the deadlink issue is resolved,~~ this nom should be OK. --Storye book (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've removed the dead link. There are two other links that confirm the same facts anyway. Edwardx (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Edwardx. All issues resolved. Good to go with ALTs 2, 3 and 4. --Storye book (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)