Template:Did you know nominations/One of Our Thursdays Is Missing
Appearance
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 PumpkinSky talk 00:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
One of Our Thursdays Is Missing
[edit]- ... that Jasper Fforde's novel One of Our Thursdays Is Missing has references to works by Charles Dickens and Samuel Pepys?
- Reviewed: Pulling Mussels (From the Shell)
Created/expanded by SL93 (talk). Self nom at 00:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hook: Looks good, but may I suggest ALT1: ... that One of Our Thursdays Is Missing, called "the funniest book you will see this year", has references to works by Charles Dickens and Samuel Pepys?
- Article: New enough, long enough. No images (going to fix that). The first and second reference are rather bare. Tone seems a little promotional in the plot section, you should check that out. Paraphrasing checks (1, 2) seems fine.
- Summary: Please clean up the tone and referencing issues and leave feedback on the ALT hook. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I did not mean for the plot section to be promotional so therefore it isn't. There is nothing wrong with those primary sources. I don't see how those sources violate the DYK rules. SL93 (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have no problems with them being primary sources. I said that they were rather bare, referring to WP:BURL. FN1 is the only real problem I see with referencing. Regarding the tone of the plot, I will try and have a go... if my connection can stay stable for five minutes. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I did not mean for the plot section to be promotional so therefore it isn't. There is nothing wrong with those primary sources. I don't see how those sources violate the DYK rules. SL93 (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Alright, good to go now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)