Template:Did you know nominations/Spare Time (film)
- 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) 01:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Spare Time (film)
Spare Time titles
- ... that Humphrey Jennings' film Spare Time (1939) showed an American audience how the British working classes spent their free time?
- ALT1:... that ...?
- Reviewed: Wilson-Wodrow-Mytinger House
- Comment: Just acquired new sources and still working on it
Created by Edwardx (talk) and Philafrenzy (talk) and No Swan So Fine. Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 11:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
QPQ: 
- Not done
Overall: 
Article requires further expansion and QPQ, but a solid start on a British classic. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I have inserted a purple "maybe" icon since the article does not appear to require considerable work before becoming eligible. Completely rejecting the nomination does not seem correct at this time. Flibirigit (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think that was probably what No Swan So Fine intended. I have the book needed to expand it (just received) and will work on it shortly. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry for any confusion. I've amended it to a 'maybe'. It'll certainly be fine after some minor work. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- Philafrenzy, Edwardx, it has been three weeks since this nomination was reviewed and no edits have been made to the article since. If you are still interested in pursuing this nomination, please do the necessary work in the next seven days. That includes the missing QPQ. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- I've just expanded it to push it over the limit. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, No Swan So Fine. I've just pinged Philafrenzy on their talk page, since the QPQ has still not been supplied and it's a month since the original review and ten days since my previous ping here. I do hope the QPQ is forthcoming, but I'm not willing to wait more than another seven days for it. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I've donated a QPQ. I've cheekily added myself to the contributors after I expanded it, which was post my review. Take me out if you wish, though. Thanks for your patience. No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- No Swan So Fine, since you increased the prose character count by nearly 70% and made the article eligible for DYK that was as well as supplying a QPQ review, I'd say you certainly should be added—I've also added a DYKmake credit for you. We'll need a new reviewer now that you're a contributor. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I've donated a QPQ. I've cheekily added myself to the contributors after I expanded it, which was post my review. Take me out if you wish, though. Thanks for your patience. No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, No Swan So Fine. I've just pinged Philafrenzy on their talk page, since the QPQ has still not been supplied and it's a month since the original review and ten days since my previous ping here. I do hope the QPQ is forthcoming, but I'm not willing to wait more than another seven days for it. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've just expanded it to push it over the limit. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Philafrenzy, Edwardx, it has been three weeks since this nomination was reviewed and no edits have been made to the article since. If you are still interested in pursuing this nomination, please do the necessary work in the next seven days. That includes the missing QPQ. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry for any confusion. I've amended it to a 'maybe'. It'll certainly be fine after some minor work. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think that was probably what No Swan So Fine intended. I have the book needed to expand it (just received) and will work on it shortly. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
New reviewer needed to review the entire expanded article against the DYK criteria. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
While the hook fact is technically true, it's not explicitly mentioned in the article, which merely states that it was made for the New York World's Fair. Perhaps the hook could be revised to reflect that instead? Or perhaps another hook direction, such as a hook involving the "encapsulation" quote, could also be proposed as an alternative? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The meaning behind the hook fact is clearly stated in the synopsis section of the film, but in different words. It's fine in my opinion. Article is long enough, new enough, well referenced, and within policy. Hook verified to the cited reference. This can be promoted.4meter4 (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
