- The following discussion 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 Victuallers (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Luisa Zissman
edit... that Luisa Zissman provoked outrage on Twitter after spelling her company's name wrong?
Created by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 21:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC).
- While the controversy section is copied from the non-bolded linked article, it is copied from a bullet point which is not DYK eligible text.--Launchballer 16:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Per suggestion on my talk page:
- ALT1:
... that Luisa Zissman provoked outrage on Twitter after spelling her company's name incorrectly?--Launchballer 13:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: I also wrote List of companies with spelling mistakes in their name, and to this day regret not nominating it for DYK. I really, really want the hook to contain a link to it in some form as a bit of closure for me.--Launchballer 23:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- ALT1:
- Per suggestion on my talk page:
Date, length and hook all OK. good to go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
No QPQ has been done; the nomination should not be approved nor promoted without a quid pro quo review being done by the nominator. This also needs a review that covers more than date, length, and hook—QPQ wasn't covered, and we also need coverage of neutrality, sourcing, close paraphrasing, and other required checks, which appear also to have been omitted. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/The Entry has been reviewed, but I don't think he's going to respond. Does that count?--Launchballer 17:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, I'm afraid not. I'd already said that the nomination was about to be closed if Gamaliel didn't respond, so I can't see how it would count, or why it should. The whole point behind QPQ is to review nominated articles that aren't already under review, and this one was. Please do one that hasn't yet been started, or has the red "review needed" icon. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Just noting the linked 'List of' article has been prodded and the controversy section in the Zissman article that the hook is based on has been deleted from the article as trivia (these were not done by me but I would endorse them). SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Full review done here. I have partially restored the controversy section under a different heading.
- ALT2: ... that Luisa Zissman named one of her businesses, Dixie's Cupcakery, after her daughter?--Launchballer 10:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Just noting the linked 'List of' article has been prodded and the controversy section in the Zissman article that the hook is based on has been deleted from the article as trivia (these were not done by me but I would endorse them). SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, I'm afraid not. I'd already said that the nomination was about to be closed if Gamaliel didn't respond, so I can't see how it would count, or why it should. The whole point behind QPQ is to review nominated articles that aren't already under review, and this one was. Please do one that hasn't yet been started, or has the red "review needed" icon. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- - And I've removed it again - "people said some things on Twitter about her grammar" is hardly the stuff of an encyclopedic biography - it is the height of ridiculous trivialities. I object to this article being frontpaged unless the material remains out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, Launchballer, I'm afraid I don't feel the Emma Knyckare nomination can count as your QPQ review; there are over 200 nominations awaiting review and you work with BabbaQ on a very regular basis, so please find another nomination to fully review. If other more experienced DYK regulars, like BlueMoonset or Crisco 1492, feel I'm being too hard about this, fair enough. I also concur with NorthBySouthBaranof about the trivia/controversy. As this is a BLP, I have to question whether any of this was checked in the initial review? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- I just picked the first unreviewed single hook for that purpose - I don't call using Reflinks on his articles involved! Would Cecilia Uddén and Kitty Jutbring have that same issue?--Launchballer 13:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Launchballer, it isn't just because you have run Reflinks on the article (in fact, I often do minor copy editing on articles I'm reviewing as part of the process of a comprehensive check); it is more that you do frequently work closely with BabbaQ and I feel that the DYK rule H2 would come into play and discount you reviewing BabbaQ's articles/nominations. There are over 200 other noms awaiting review, I'm sure you could find several that BabbaQ isn't involved with? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/The Crescent (Birmingham)--Launchballer 14:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Launchballer, yes OK, I've given that a quick skim but please double check that each paragraph in the Crescent article has an inline ref; add a DYK? icon; and make sure you leave a message on Pigsonthewing's (the nominator) talk page so they know work is required, just in case they are not watching the page (some people don't). As your own nomination here is stalled at the moment, I'll keep a watch on the Crescent nomination as well, so please make sure to complete it. Thanks! SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/The Crescent (Birmingham)--Launchballer 14:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Launchballer, it isn't just because you have run Reflinks on the article (in fact, I often do minor copy editing on articles I'm reviewing as part of the process of a comprehensive check); it is more that you do frequently work closely with BabbaQ and I feel that the DYK rule H2 would come into play and discount you reviewing BabbaQ's articles/nominations. There are over 200 other noms awaiting review, I'm sure you could find several that BabbaQ isn't involved with? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- I just picked the first unreviewed single hook for that purpose - I don't call using Reflinks on his articles involved! Would Cecilia Uddén and Kitty Jutbring have that same issue?--Launchballer 13:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, Launchballer, I'm afraid I don't feel the Emma Knyckare nomination can count as your QPQ review; there are over 200 nominations awaiting review and you work with BabbaQ on a very regular basis, so please find another nomination to fully review. If other more experienced DYK regulars, like BlueMoonset or Crisco 1492, feel I'm being too hard about this, fair enough. I also concur with NorthBySouthBaranof about the trivia/controversy. As this is a BLP, I have to question whether any of this was checked in the initial review? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: I've struck the first two hooks because they have redlinks in them, which is forbidden for DYK hooks. (No redlinks on the main page.) It appears the linked article has been deleted since the hooks were devised. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you. SagaciousPhil, I've put on the nomination that there needs to be an inline ref for the last paragraph (which doesn't appear here) and added a DYK? icon. He has already responded to it once so I am hesitant to put a talkback notice on his talk page.--Launchballer 09:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Launchballer. It had never been my intention to review this nomination/article, my involvement was simply to ensure the necessary QPQ, which has now been initiated, was undertaken. Rather than leaving this nomination languishing here as I don't feel entitled to place a {{DYK?again}} icon, I will leave a note on NorthBySouthBaranof's talk page to ask them to drop by and have another look as they placed the {{DYK?no}} icon here a week ago. Personally I have several reservations about this article - is Luisa Zissman even notable? It is not an area I am familiar with (I don't think I've ever even seen a reality TV show) but items like "Her first job was as a Saturday girl at a newsagents" just seem like pure trivia to me. There are also problems with the nomination, especially that the ALT2 does not seem to be in the article, and less importantly as they can easily be fixed, there are a couple of bare urls in the references. As Ohconfucius seems to have a bit more experience with this type of article and has recently commented on fancruft DYKs, I am also going to check if they would be willing to have a look at this nomination. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you. SagaciousPhil, I've put on the nomination that there needs to be an inline ref for the last paragraph (which doesn't appear here) and added a DYK? icon. He has already responded to it once so I am hesitant to put a talkback notice on his talk page.--Launchballer 09:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: I've struck the first two hooks because they have redlinks in them, which is forbidden for DYK hooks. (No redlinks on the main page.) It appears the linked article has been deleted since the hooks were devised. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- I cringe when I see stuff like this. If we remove all the television' there's no biography worth mentioning. We have: "She owns a cake shop that was burgled. She appeared on Big Brother, when she said that she was bisexual addicted to sex. She has a daughter called Dixie." Now being considered for deletion. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: As you may have noticed, I have stubbed down the article. It now weighs 1200B, so it fails DYK criteria. The article still has some crufty bits which I haven't made up my mind about. I looked through all the sources and I don't see very much that can help further expansion of the article. It would be great if you can find any more biographical information for expansion. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ohconfucius, pings and other notification methods do not work from within template space. If you want Launchballer's attention, his talk page is the best way. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- AfD closed as Keep, but size is back below 1500 prose characters after recent edits. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Still appears to need QPQ! Then another reviewer once that's done. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- My QPQ has been done - please look above. Template:Did you know nominations/The Crescent (Birmingham)--Launchballer 09:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Review requested. -- Ohc ¡digame! 09:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Date, length and hook all Ok. QPQ done. Good to go (and about time too!) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)