Template:Did you know nominations/Simon Clark (novelist)

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) 13:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Simon Clark (novelist)

(

)

~~... that Simon Clark was one of the first writers to have his own webpage?~~

Created/expanded by S.tollyfield (talk). Self nominated at 21:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC).

fixed formatting of hook. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 22:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a cite for "first website". EEng (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- @EEng: It's cited here in the line, "I’m extremely proud of the fact that the Simon Clark website was a very rare thing – one of the first author websites on the planet.". Thanks, ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 11:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I figured that might be the answer, but see WP:SELFPUB. Even putting that aside, this is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary support, the internet being a really, really big place even then. EEng (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@EEng: I see, but the hook says "one of the first", not the "very first". I'll try to find a better source. @S.tollyfield:, can you find an alternate hook? Thanks, ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 13:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Writers aren't known for the modesty. EEng (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Does not the fact that the website was archived by the British Library indicate its significance? However an alternative hook would be:

ALT1: ... that the writer Simon Clark had nearly completed a script for the animated 9th Doctor Who, who at the time was Richard E Grant, before the commission was cancelled by the BBC? S.tollyfield (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There are a zillion reasons it might have been archived, and I have no idea whether that's because it was one of the first etc etc etc. I have no opinion on ALT1 except I don't really understand it -- Richard Grant was the animated 9th Dr. Who? What does that even mean? I won't be following this thread further -- just wanted to be clear about the original hook. EEng (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The Ninth Doctor is Christopher Ecclestone. However the BBC made a flash animation online with Richard E Grant as Doctor Who which just sort of got forgotten when the TV series regenerated instead.S.tollyfield (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really think it needs to mention who the 9th doctor was. So how about this? I've also linked doctor who to Dreamland (Doctor Who) which was the animated version.

ALT2: ... that the writer Simon Clark had nearly completed a script for the animated 9th Doctor Who, before the commission was cancelled by the BBC? ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 21:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine...when is it likely that a decision might be made about this?S.tollyfield (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@S.tollyfield: Be patient, for the time being, you can work on other stuff. If you really want to speed it up, you can ask some active participants to look at it. Cheers, ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 15:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Full review needed now that a hook seems to be set. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

ALT2 is in no way backed up by the article and the content of the source page seems not to do so either. We need another hook. How about

ALT3 ... that British horror novelist Simon Clark wrote a sequel to John Wyndham's The Day of the Triffids? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Full review still needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

5x expansion verified. New enough, long enough, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. There is just the matter of a year needed in the last paragraph under Biography; in another year, it won't be "recently", so a time frame should be given. No QPQ needed for first-time nominator. ALT3 is good; I tweaked it by adding who he is. Alternatively, you might consider:
ALT4: ... ~~that in Vampyrrhic, British horror novelist Simon Clark reversed the romantic image of vampires, making them loathsome, repellent, and ultra-violent again?~~ Yoninah (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:Yoninah Thank you for your message on my Talk page regarding this page. Please note however that I am now a Retired Wikipedian. I do not edit anymore because I posted a mildly critical question at the Teahouse and as a consequence my contributions - I am not allowed to say "my work" as I have been repeatedly advised - were subject to a barrage of negative edits. One particular editor was particularly swinging in his - I assume - deletions on more than one page and he is now making deletions on this page. So it is now impossible to make one of the edits suggested as the whole paragraph in question has now been deleted. His given name "The road is long," is somewhat ironic as of course the road is made longer if everytime you build something the bigger boys come and kick it over and you have to argue with them as to why you should be allowed to build it back up again - and oh how they love to argue and are always right! The author Paul Finch could not believe how his page was changing on a daily basis and I do not want the same thing to happen to Simon Clark's page and if I stick around that is what will happen. I did not create the Simon Clark page I only tried to improve it. It is unlikely now to become a featured page which is a shame. I have found the whole experience to be a thankless and joyless one so I am now an Ex-Editor. I am again cleaning my former Talk page - please no one put any comments on the page - just flowers if you must...S.tollyfield (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yoninah, the "recently" statement was removed as "puffery" by another editor on December 4, the one that nominator S.tollyfield was referring to. I believe this means your sole caveat preventing approval for ALT3 is gone. Since the nominator has retired without guidance on either ALT3 or ALT4, we should probably go ahead with the hook you've already approved. I'll let you decide. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the page looks fine now, and the editing history is stable now, so it's ready for the main page. However, I prefer my ALT4 hook, and since I can't approve my own hook, I'm calling for another reviewer to decide between ALT3 and ALT4. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ALT4 is a bit more interesting but it's not explicitly cited (no mention of romantic image, loathsome, repellent or ultra-violent). Clark said in the 2003 interview: "In Vampyrrhic and Vampyrrhic Rites I returned to the classic notion that vampires are the equivalent of two-legged leaches, driven by instinct and hunger, not intellect."[1] Unless I'm pointing at the wrong sentence, I don't think the hook adequately summerises that.

ALT3 is stated and cited, so good to go on Yoninah's review. Fuebaey (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)