Template talk:Did you know nominations/Peter Williams (dance critic)

There's not a trace of copying or close paraphrase from the ODNB article in the present version of the WP article. I'd prefer the peacock adjective "famous" to be removed from before Harrow, but that apart I think the article is a good piece of work. Reference 5 needs a bit of reformatting, and we are inconsistent about including the definite article in newspaper titles (The Observer, but just Daily Mail). Ref order needs switching in two places ([2][1] in Early life and [4][1] in Dance writer and journalist). The sourcing is varied and uses other reliable authorities in addition to the ODNB. From the point of view of the sourcing and integrity of the text and the quality of the content there is no reason why this should not be a DYK, but I seem to recall that there are arbitrary deadlines for the DYK process which may now preclude this. – Tim riley talk 08:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the 5* expansion, it was a partial copyvio. Why should we promote such expansions to DYK? The article as it stands now may be unproblematic, but then we are lng past the deadline to get an acceptable (copyvio-free) expansion. Some experienced editors seem to think that as soon as one nominates an article, no matter what the problems, they have quasi-unlimited time to then turn it into something acceptable. That's not the purpose of DYK though, it is not a peer review article cleanup process. Either nominate a decent article which is basically ready for DYK promotion (with some minor issues swiftly addressed), or accept that your nomination will be rejected. Fram (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me – how vehement! I was not taking any view at all about the review process, but simply, as asked, giving my assessment of the quality and integrity of the article. Please do not shoot the messenger. Tim riley talk 09:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my comment was not about you but about the article nominator, but as I wrote it as a reply to you, it of course came across quite differently. It wasn't my intention to "shoot" you. Fram (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Tim for looking through this and confirming that it's in good shape now. The next step might be to nominate it as a GA but I turned up a source in my last look which I want to study in more detail first, to see what we can glean from that. I'm quite busy with other matters currently and so am not sure when I will get back to this. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]