Template:Did you know nominations/Isla Dewar

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 SL93 (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Isla Dewar

(

)

... that Scottish novelist Isla Dewar said "if ... a thing is not worth doing then it's worth doing fabulously, amazingly, with grace, style and panache"?Source: "quote here
- ALT1: ... that ...?

Reviewed: yep
Comment: created at the 54th Women in Red editathon hosted by Edinburgh University this month

Created by Emcee47 (talk) and Victuallers (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 13:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC).

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

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: - "List of work" section needs sourcing for each entry.
Neutral: - A couple places where non-NPOV claims are introduced but not sourced; for example, "Her books are known for their humour" would need to be cited.
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems: - Citation No. 10 (IMDB) should ideally be replaced per WP:IMDB as it is generally accepted as being an unreliable source.

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems: - The existing hook has a few formatting errors; I believe the space between the ellipses and the start of the quote should be deleted and the "if" at the start of the quote should start with a lowercase "i"; further, the closing quote should be inside the question mark as the question mark is part of the DYK hook itself as opposed to the quote.

QPQ: - Has not been completed.
Overall: A few problems with formatting and sourcing. Earwig gives a possible violation but the bulk of it is her list of works so I have no problems there. The hook is alright as is (noting formatting suggestions above), but I think there are more interesting hooks to be found within the article (living in the mansion, writing the screenplay for Women Talking Dirty, a book per year, 17 languages, etc.), though that's something to be left up to you. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS::Thanks for the review and sorry I missed adding a QPQ this one should do. Odd requirement to have a source for every book I think, never heard that before, but OK, Ive removed the list. Good points about the hook formatting (reviewers are allowed to make changes) I have done them. I have reffed the assertion of having humour. Do feel free to add another hook to be approved by another but Im OK with this one. Thanks again. Victuallers (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Victuallers: Upon looking into it a bit further, I can't say for certain if a totally sourced bibliography is a hard requirement or not. WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY says Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet, though I can't tell whether "are encouraged" refers to the addition of the lists or the sourcing of the lists. Really, my only experience with this is with WP:ITNRD, where nominations are (semi-)regularly rejected for having incomplete or non-existent sourcing for bibliographies/filmographies, etc., but admittedly I don't know if the same principle applies at DYK. If not, you can go ahead and add the list back and I will AGF with that part of it. As for the rest of the nomination, the QPQ looks good, sourcing is good, and if you're happy with the hook that's all good with me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)