Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Lofty Chiltern

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) 05:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Lofty Chiltern

[edit]
(
)
  • Reviewed: This is my first DYK nomination so I am exempt from the QPQ.
  • Comment: Please feel free to adjust the wording of the hook(s) or add another one.

Created by Soaper1234 (talk). Self-nominated at 10:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC).

  • The article was created on 10 February 2017‎ but was not nominated within 7 days range. It was continuously expanded over a month and was nominated on 12 March 2017. Considering 7 days limit, the article had 16972 characters (2964 words) with "readable prose size" on 4 March 2017. As of today, article has 27432 characters (4696 words) with "readable prose size". I dont think this is 5x expanded within the date range. Perhaps consider taking it to WP:GAN, if suits, and nominated once the article passes the review. or consider further expansion but I believe that would be too tough to do within next 5 days. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing Vivvt but the article was created in my userspace on 10 February 2017. It was moved to mainspace on 12 March 2017 so does comply with the new article guidelines. Was this the only problem stopping the creation of the DYK? Thanks, Soaper1234 (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Soaper1234: My bad! I didnt notice this with long edit history. I will review the article in the mean time. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The article is full of quotes and written like a fan page. This should be more encyclopedic but uses too may WP:PEACOCK terms. See if you could reduce them. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Vivvt: I have tried to condense the amount of quotations used, but could you be clearer on where in the article needs improving so it is not "written like a fan page"? Thanks Soaper1234 (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Soaper1234 and BlueMoonset: I have made some changes to article myself. Feel free to revert. Still some quotes are there but not sure how address those as it may impact the article majorly where it describes character. With that respect, I request for another editor/reviewer to chime in. Apologies for the late response. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Vivvt: Thank you for your input - it is appreciated. I will look through it properly now but at a glance, I have noticed the changing of characters' name to their surnames, which is not preffered. Soaper1234 (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Following comments from Vivvt, I have improved the article and have added to it. I would like this DYK review to be continued. Soaper1234 - talk 12:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • On it. — LlywelynII 20:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

    Copyvio issues: Article long enough (~32k elig. chars.) and hooks terse enough (<100 chars.); timely; minor grammatical mistakes (within the lede: listing three items, then referring to "the latter"; comma issues; etc.) but nothing dispositive; article can and probably will be trimmed for excessive detail but that's standard for articles on pop fiction and there's nothing dispositive here: it's a new article so even wholesale trimming won't affect its worthiness for DYK; Earwig finds massive copyvio which is ok when it's quotes being pulled but not ok when it's paragraphs being lifted wholesale from the BBC site: that and any similar copy pasta need to be completely rewritten; there's also plenty copied from our Characters of Casualty page but I personally don't care about that because (a) it's been massively expanded and sourced here and (b) Soaper is a regular editor on that page as well (110 of last 500 edits) and responsible for most of the duplicate text; both hooks sourced and article well sourced generally; original hook better than ALT1 since it doesn't needlessly repeat the word "role"; ALT1 is also rather uninteresting since he currently has no other TV roles; the more interesting fact that he's getting a spin-off show is going unremarked, but that's up to Soaper to care about; no picture to worry about.

    As a side point: Soaper1234, you might consider removing any link in your hook except your article's. You're just going to drive clicks away from the page you worked on. — LlywelynII 20:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review LlywelynII. I have edited the lead to fix errors with wording. The paragraph from the BBC site is quoted using a quote, which is explicitly visible in the article, fit with a source. This type of quoting from the official BBC website has occured in various other articles, for example Bobby Beale (EastEnders), Caleb Knight and Dylan Keogh. However, despite this, if you feel this isn't appropriate, please let me know and I shall paraphrase sections and embed them into the characterisation section. I have to admit I struggled to create an ALT1 so that was my best shot and to note, the character didn't get his own spin-off show, he just joined Casualty's established spin-off series, Holby City. And that is a good idea about the linking; the new hook can be: ALT2: "... that the role of Lofty Chiltern in Casualty was specifically written for actor Lee Mead?". Thank you again. Soaper1234 - talk 17:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah. The quote template formatting didn't show up in Earwig. Looking at the formatting in the article, yeah, that's a perfectly obvious quote and not a copyvio issue. G2G w/ALT2. — LlywelynII 08:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Lofty_Chiltern&oldid=948239409"