Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Ian Eaves

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 07:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Ian Eaves

[edit]
(
)
  • ... that a dinner-party joke at the Metropolitan Museum of Art caused Ian Eaves to be labelled a prospective thief? Source: The joke is quoted in the New York Times coverage of a banquet at the Met: "'There's a number of things I'd like to make off with if I could be sure I would be undetected,' said a smiling Ian D.D. Eaves, curator of The Armories at Her Majesty's Tower of London." Gandert 1982 and Nathe 2015 treat this seriously (e.g., Gandert: "The idea that just about anybody is capable of theft is not farfetched. Take, for example, the statement of Ian D.D. Eaves..."). Eaves's comment was clearly a joke, as Katz 1983 points out (calling Gandert "a bit credulous").
  • ALT1: ... that Ian Eaves has catalogued the arms and armour of Queen Elizabeth II, and written about those of King Henry VIII? Source: Eaves 2016 (Arms & Armour: in the Collection of Her Majesty The Queen); Eaves 1993 (The Tournament Armours of King Henry VIII of England)
  • ALT2: ... that Ian Eaves spent nearly two decades creating a catalogue of the arms and armour owned by Queen Elizabeth II? this Source: Eaves began in 2000, and it's a 2016 work.
  • ALT3: ... that a dinner-party joke at the Metropolitan Museum of Art caused Ian Eaves to be mislabelled a thief?
  • ALT4: ... that a dinner-party joke at the Metropolitan Museum of Art caused Ian Eaves to be 'credulously' labelled a thief?
  • ALT5: ... that a dinner-party joke at the Metropolitan Museum of Art caused Ian Eaves to be mislabelled a book thief?

5x expanded by Usernameunique (talk). Self-nominated at 07:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC).

  • I am concerned about the wording of the hook because of possible BLP implications. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Narutolovehinata5. What part concerns you? The hook makes it clear that Eaves was joking, and I think the article makes clear than it was ludicrous of Gandert to treat the comment — to a reporter, no less — seriously. —Usernameunique (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
The phrase "to be labelled a prospective thief" specifically. Even if intended as a joke, readers may think otherwise until they read the article, and let's face it, not all hook articles are actually read by readers. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, how about "mislabelled" then? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Still not really fond of that label. How about rewriting the hook to emphasize the non-seriousness of the matter? Like showing that it was a joke? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I'm a bit confused. His comment is already termed a "dinner-party joke" in the hook; does that not show that it was a joke? --Usernameunique (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I meant to say that it should be emphasized in the hook that the "labeling"/"mislabeling" was never intended to be serious. Plenty of serious disagreements and genuine accusations have been the results of jokes, so that not being the case here needs to be clear. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I had previously thought that your BLP concern was that the hook might treat Eaves unfairly. Your most recent comment, however, makes me think instead that you are concerned the hook may treat Gandert (the labeller/mislabeller) unfairly. Which is it? In either event, I'm happy to send you the sources if that would help—it's pretty clear that Eaves was joking, but Gandert wasn't. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
In any case, I'm not sure if we can go with the hook since the hook fact is mentioned only in a footnote and not the article body itself (the article text itself is fairly vague on the incident in question and only briefly discusses it). Maybe we could try a different hook here? He seems to have had quite an interesting career so there should be other things to choose from. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, if you can point me to somewhere in the DYK rules where it says that hook facts cannot partly rely on footnotes, I will happily move the information from the footnote to the main text. Otherwise, I don't think it's an issue. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Just asked on WT:DYK and they said it should be acceptable. With that said, I'm not exactly sure why the information is in a footnote in the first place rather than the article text. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. It's in a footnote because the subsequent treatment of Eaves's joke doesn't appear to have involved Eaves himself; because it's a discussion of how his words were taken out of context, not in context; and because spending a fourth of the "Career" section on a single comment would seem to be undue. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I find it hard to believe that anybody could be misled by this hook, or that it could become a serious BLP issue. However, I'm not seeing the claim that he was "labelled a thief", even jokingly. His comment was used to back up a claim that anybody could become a thief, but that is not the same thing as calling him a thief. SpinningSpark 19:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Spinningspark, the hook says Eaves was labelled a prospective thief, not a thief generally. This is supported by Nathe 2005, which states that "Book thieves can be overenthusiastic hobbyists, drug addicts, gamblers, politicians, priests, librarians, night custodians, building maintenance workers, PhD candidates, library benefactors, or historians. They may steal only once. They may have their method down pat, having long been in the business of living off of stolen goods. They do not have any specific 'look' but are often charming, knowledgeable, and friendly. Ian D. D. Eaves, Curator of the Armory at Her Majesty’s Tower in London and a gentleman, said with a pleasant smile while viewing the armor collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 'There’s a number of things I’d like to make off with if I could be sure I would be undetected.'" This pretty clearly uses Eaves as an example of a (prospective) thief who comes across as a charming gentleman; in doing so, it replaces the NYT reference to Eaves "smiling" (i.e., joking) with a description of Eaves having "a pleasant smile," which carries with it a connotation of duplicity. Similarly, Gandert stated that "The idea that just about anybody is capable of theft is not farfetched. Take, for example, the statement of Ian D.D. Eaves, Curator of the Armory at Her Majesty's Tower, London, when he viewed the armor collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 'There's a number of things I'd like to make off with if I could be sure I would be undetected,' the gentleman said with a smile." This is a pretty clear indication that Gandert considered it "not farfetched" that Eaves would steal if given the chance. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In any case, would you be able to provide an alternate hook here that doesn't involve that incident? Just as a backup in case this "thief" thing doesn't work out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to do that Narutolovehinata5, if after a review it turns out that the hook will not work. As it stands, however, after a month of intermittent comments on this page, all that has been expressed is vague uneasiness with the hook. Moreover, your two reasons for uneasiness—BLP violation, and substantiated by information in a footnote—have been disagreed with by others. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
SpinningSpark raised an issue above regarding hook clarity, however. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Spinningspark is welcome to address my response above, but I believe it adequately addresses any concerns that were expressed. Meanwhile, it remains unclear why an entire month has passed without more substantive feedback than 'please suggest more hooks as a backup.' If you are not interested in reviewing the hook, I am happy to add the appropriate symbol to let someone else review this. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Please stop pinging me, I had read your response and it did not incline me to change my position. SpinningSpark 13:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
As long as there are objections to that hook fact, then we can't go with it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Full review needed. The above discussion pertains solely to the choice of the hook, which I am happy to revisit, if needed, in the context of a full review. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

A nomination can't move forward without a good hook though, and when two reviewers agree that there is something wrong (even if may be for different reasons), then that is an argument that perhaps there is another way to move forward in this case. I'm willing to do a full review of the article, but the hook issue remains pressing at this point. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I think I've adequately responded to Spinningspark's point, which, it seems, is a comment about only one of the sources used to support the hook (Gandert 1982), not the other (Nathe 2005). I'm not sure what your remaining concern is, if any; your last comment wasn't about the hook, it was about the hook fact being supported by footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned above, his objection stood despite the explanation given. Personally I disagree with him and think that the sources given are enough, but again, unless he withdraws his objection, we can't go with the "thief" hook I'm afraid. I understand you really want that particular hook fact to be used, but I'd like to reiterate my suggestion of proposing alternatives; who knows, there might be something about him that's even more interesting than that particular fact. And to be frank, even if the hook might not necessarily be a BLP violation, some readers might interpret it as such (having living people labeled as "thieves" on the Main Page, even if as a joke or a misunderstanding, is probably not a good idea in the first place). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, seems like we have three different people in this discussion and about five different opinions. Regardless, a statement that "I had read your response and it did not incline me to change my position," without any reasoning as to why, is hardly a comment worth getting hung up on. Without more, there is certainly no reason for us to wait for it to be withdrawn in order to proceed. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Honestly I think the best option moving forward would be to propose another hook (while keeping the original one as an option), then let a new reviewer decide between the two. It could work as a compromise. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, sounds good to me. I've added two hooks above. Assuming they all work factually, let's punt the decision to the promoter; it's probably a good idea, as you suggest, to let fresh eyes make that decision. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Requesting another reviewer take a look and decide what hook to promote. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5, you’re welcome to ask for another reviewer if you would like. If you are still interested in doing the review yourself, however, one option would be to check (and hopefully approve) all three hooks, and then let whoever promotes a hook to prep to decide which of the three to use. —Usernameunique (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
NOTE a full review needs to be done. Discussions have only talked about hooks. Will do if nobody else does within a week. Flibirigit (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: Please feel free to review this as I have already recused myself from participating in this further. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I will have a look next week if nobody else does. Flibirigit (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: It's been a week, this is probably ready for a new review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Will do this later today. Flibirigit (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Usernameunique I was about to do a full review. I noticed that the readable word count before January 3rd (not including lists) was 2526, and after January 6th it was 7789. This appears to be only a threefold expansion? Flibirigit (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Flibirigit, that would be an ironic end to the discussion, wouldn't it? But block quotations are not included in the count (see Rule A2), so by my count that brings the initial number down to 1,874 (*5 = 9,370). And then the footnote needs to be counted as to the current number. My count is 8,440—still a hair short (I'll add the required amount tonight), but very doable. By the way, I've changed the tick, as I believe the "no" tick automatically archives at some point. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit, added another 1023 characters, more than the 930 I believe was needed. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I will do a word recount when I get to a physical computer tomorrow. Flibirigit (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Usernameunique, Flibirigit, I just checked the May 5, 2018 count (the last edit prior to the January 3, 2019 expansion) using DYKcheck, which is designed to check prose and ignore things like bulleted lists or blockquotes. It gives a prose character count of 2144, but it's including 67 characters that it shouldn't, so 2077 is the key number. A 5x expansion would take 2077 to 10,385 prose characters, but according to DYKcheck, the article is currently at 8163 prose characters, or a hair under 4x. Another 2222 prose characters (that's the actual number; today's fun coincidence) is what's needed for this to be a 5x expansion. Sorry for the bad news. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, thanks for the count. I just ran it and got the same number, but I don't think it's accurate. A manual count—lumping together the lead with the two non-blockquote paragraphs in "Publications," and removing the footnotes (e.g., "[2]")—still turns up 1,874 (315 words, 1,560 characters without spaces, 1,874 characters with spaces: that's per MS Word, but www.lettercount.com verifies the 1,874 number). I can't figure out what accounts for the 303-character discrepancy, but I believe 1,874 to be the correct number. Meanwhile, the same method totals 9,406 characters currently (with Word; 9,408 with lettercount). Part of this discrepancy, at least, is clear, as the tool is omitting the footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Usernameunique, you're right about the DYKcheck issues; thanks for pointing that out. I've notified the creator of the problem, though I don't know when they'll next be on Wikipedia or how soon they might fix the bug. A smaller number should be used as the pre-expansion count. I see that you've incorporated the footnote text into the body of the article. For count purposes, this makes sense; I doubt that footnotes would have been allowed in the general count. However, the reason blockquotes aren't counted is because DYK gives credit for original material but not copied material: both public domain material and long quotes are not counted toward the total because the material was written by someone else. We go by MOS:BLOCKQUOTE as our rule of thumb: 40 or more words is a blockquote-sized quote, and should be blockquoted and thus not counted, so we don't include it regardless of formatting (though the various counting programs are not programmed to deal with this). As best I can determine, that second paragraph under Career has no fewer than three blockquote-size quotes (one over 100 words), none of which can count toward the overall total. There needs to be more paraphrasing in general, and in no event should the Eaves quote be used twice in the same paragraph. I'm really sorry for the bad news—it's an interesting article—but there will need to be more work done on the article, and almost certainly more expansion once those quotes are excluded from the count. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding. Usernameunique, do you have any further expansion planned before I go ahead with a full review? I want to avoid doing more than one review if possible. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
No worries, BlueMoonset; it bodes well that we’re now discussing hundreds of characters rather than thousands. At any rate, I’ve broken up the 40+ word quotations into MOS-compliant pieces. Flibirigit, I would go ahead with the review. If for some reason—and reasons seem to keep appearing!—further expansion is called for, it should be insignificant. Thanks, —Usernameunique (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I am very surprised, Usernameunique, that you would think that interpolating a few words here and there would make the long quotes, which are not original material, any more original, even if they aren't technically blockquotes. You have still used over forty, or sixty, or one hundred word stretches of the original sources, and dropping a few words from those won't obscure this fact either. So the revision and expansion will have to be significant—it's why I was sorry for the bad news. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, since your latest comment I've added some 900 additional characters, and reworded some of the offending quotations. Perhaps, however, I should have been more clear with my reply. I made no claim that those changes to the quotations made the material more "original"; rather, there is simply no restriction on the use of non-block quotations in the DYK rules. Rule 2b is concerned only with public domain text, and in fact, Rule A2's limitation on block quotations—and block quotations only—would seem to be the exception that proves the rule. At this point, based both on the rules, and whatever subjective metric is being used to weigh the "originality" of non-block quotations, I believe the length of the article is well within the 5x requirement. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
(Perhaps I should also note that my reluctance to further expand the article is because it feels as if at this point, additions to the article are mostly additions for the sake of additions. If we're going to replace the quantitative DYK length rules with a qualitative "originality" metric—which I don't recommend—we may as well balance it out with a qualitative "are the further additions worth it" analysis. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC))
In reviewing the comments above, there does not appear to be a consensus to continue. Flibirigit (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Flibirigit, the article now comprises some 10,426 characters. Even were we to remove from the count every single quotation from the second paragraph of "Career," which BlueMoonset appears most concerned about, the article would still be 9,380 characters long: 10 more than a five-fold expansion requires (9,370). --Usernameunique (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Flibirigit, I thought Usernameunique had improved matters, including adding material, and I have made my own edit to remove the duplicate quotation and paraphrase a bit more of the material; I don't see that this shouldn't continue, though we can certainly get a new reviewer if you aren't interested. I have requested that Nikkimaria take a look at the article, especially the Career second paragraph, since she's perhaps the best expert we have on quoting and paraphrasing in the DYK space—she's who I consult whenever I'm wondering about sufficient expansions and not exceeding the proper amount of quoting from a source. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
On a quick look none of the quoting is so extensive as to cause concerns with regards to non-free content (although the NYT quoting comes close given the shorter length of the source). The material intended as paraphrasing also seems appropriate. The amount of quoting overall may be a stylistic issue, but that's not a reason to fail DYK. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Full review needed now that length and quoting concerns seem to be addressed; reviewer should note that DYKcheck is overcounting the number of characters in the pre-expansion article. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 Doing... starting a full review now... let's hope we can get through it this time. Flibirigit (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - ?
  • Interesting: No - ?
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article has been expanded fivefold as per the discussion above. Length is adequate. I agree with the sourcing style concerns mentioned by Nikkimaria, but those are not overly critical to DYK. My only sourcing concerns are the paragraph under the "Papers" header. I also made a minor copyedit to remove the empty notes section. If it should have content, please adjust accordingly. Article appears neutral in tone. I agree with Nikkimaria, that no close paraphrasing issues are detected. Areas highlighted by Earwig are either directed attributed quotes, or proper nouns. No concerns with photos. QPQ has been completed. In the introduction and "Career" section it says "Eaves currently works". It is preferable to reword to say "as of" or "since" to avoid a dated statement. As for the hooks, I agree with the above comments that ALT0 could be misinterpreted and is not an option. ALT1 says "studied" those of Henry VIII, whereas in the article it says "lectured". Please adjust accordingly. ALT2 seems fine, but I do request to post the citation source on this template for transparency and to assist in reviewing and promoting. I also recommended to suggest other hooks. I note there are some clever word play opportunites for Eaves being the "Keeper of the Armour", in relation to other things he did or didn't keep, such as his armor collection, or the log on Royal Armour et cetera. Flibirigit (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Flibirigit Added sources to "Papers." "Notes" was simply awaiting the reinsertion of the footnote, but I'll do that after this article runs. Changed "Currently" to "As of 2019," as the source (website of a publisher) still says he is a consultant. He has both lectured and published on the armor of Henry VIII (the latter is covered in "Papers"). Is this the source you wanted for ALT2? It's a 2016 article about the publication of the work and states that Eaves got involved in 2000—hence the "nearly two decades." I've added an ALT3 ("mislabelled" to clear any confusion over his good name), and will add any that I can think of in the next day or so. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the updates, and I see no further sourcing issues. For ALT1 I recommend changing the wording to match what is in the lead section, that is written and lectured. It's better to have similar wording in the hook and the article, so the reader is not on a treasure hunt to find it. Also, please put the cited source next to the proposed hook. For ALT2, I see in the citation where he started in 2000, but nothing about when he finished or still being there? Did I miss something? Also, please put the cited source next to the proposed hook. ALT3 I don't see anything in the article resembling "mislabelled a prospective thief". There needs to be similar wording in the article as the hook. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit, taking your points in order:
1) Changed ALT1 wording ("studied" --> "written about")
2) Placed cited sources next to ALT1
3) The book was published in 2016; Eaves started work on it in 2000, so that's a 17-year investment.
4) Placed cited source next to ALT2
5) Gandert and Nathe treated Eaves as a prospective thief; Katz called this "a bit credulous." If you would rather we not use synonyms, I've added an ALT4 which uses the "credulous" language.
Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Are the words "prospective thief" anywhere in the book? Sorry for being very specific here. Flibirigit (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit, I take it you mean anywhere in the article? Gandert uses Eave's comment to say that anyone "is capable of theft"; I think we can equate "is capable of" with "prospective." But we could also drop the "prospective" and just say "mislabelled a thief" (or "mislabelled a book thief"), since Nathe is even more blunt: "Book thieves ... do not have any specific 'look' but are often charming, knowledgeable, and friendly. Ian D. D. Eaves, Curator of the Armory at Her Majesty’s Tower in London and a gentleman, said with a pleasant smile while viewing the armor collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 'There’s a number of things I’d like to make off with if I could be sure I would be undetected.'" --Usernameunique (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Whichever words you want to use in that hook, please make sure the same words are mentioned in the article. For example "prospective thief" or "make off undected" et cetera. As an alternative, I think you should consider something like... Keeper of the armour, but did not keep his own armour collection" or similar witty wording. Flibirigit (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit, I've taken out "prospective" (and added an ALT5, also based on Nathe). The wording should now perfectly accord with that in the article. Meanwhile, your proposed hook runs into some trouble with the fact that Eaves does seem to collect himself. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I am confused. The article states: "Eaves has also collected armour himself; one of his former pieces is now owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.[9]" Please clarify. Flibirigit (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit, that's correct. Thus Eaves has indeed kept armor himself, and may still do so. It is thus incorrect to say "he did not keep armour himself" or similar. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
It is incorrect to state the present situation, because he may do something in the future? Flibirigit (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit, it is not an issue of whether he may do something in the future, it is an issue of whether he is currently doing something. Eaves may currently have (I would guess he probably does have) a collection of armor, we simply don't have a current source about his collection; the only source we have states that in 2000, he sold a piece of armour from his collection; there is nothing to suggest that he stopped collecting. At any rate, I'm not sure I see much humor in "the keeper didn't keep" hook, since "Keeper of the Armour" as simply a job title is quite clear. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Great, I will abandon that suggestion. I have struck ALT3, ALT4 and ALT5 since the word thief specifically does not appear in the article, and is a BLP problem to avoid. If you have a different suggestion for the dinner party party, please post, or we can pursue ALT 1 and ALT2 instead. Flibirigit (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Flibirigit, the word "thieves" appears in the article. I believe readers will know that this is simply the plural of thief? (Also, I'm not sure where this rule about every word in a hook must be in an article comes from; it's not one that you follow in your own nominations. See, e.g., Lyle Wright (no "favored"; no "minded"), Gilles Courteau (no "switch"; no "official").) And I'm a bit confused why noting that someone was "mislabelled a thief" would be a BLP violation when the "mis" makes it clear that the labelling was done in error. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I considered disagreeing with the previous BLP concerns mentioned if the source wording and article wording were strong and succinct, but I don’t see the hook similarly mentioned in the article, and the quote you provided beside ALT0 is not explicit. I also have borderline reservations that the entire passage about the dinner party jokes is given WP:UNDUE weight in the section about his career, but not enough that I want to decline this DYK nomination. Considering that there are two other valid hooks, it is best to avoid the potential BLP issue. While I respect your right to disagree or ask for another review, I will not change my mind and I am moving on from this nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I am approving ALT1 and ALT2. I wish you all the best in the future, and sincerely hope to see this nomination on the main page. Flibirigit (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Flibirigit. Despite our differing perspectives, I appreciate your thoroughness. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ian_Eaves&oldid=887696670"