Template:Did you know nominations/Sexy Lady (Jessie J song)

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 Gatoclass (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sexy Lady (Jessie J song), No. 7 (brand)

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

• Sexy Lady (Jessie J song)
• No. 7 (brand)

)

• ... that "Sexy Lady" by Jessie J charted at #22 on the UK Singles Chart on the back of digital downloads after it was featured in a Boots No. 7 advert despite the fact that it was not physically released as a single?

Created by Launchballer (talk). Self nominated at 13:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC).

• Good 2 go.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• That is not a sufficient review. The second article, No. 7 (brand), was not in the section heading and didn't have an article history link or a {{DYKmake}} (all of which I've now corrected), so it could have easily been missed. The "review" does not say whether both articles have been checked. Also, the hook is a little too long. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sexy Lady (Jessie J song) article - created new/moved on 26 November, so new enough and neutral; 1823 characters of readable prose but over 600 characters of those are quotes, so I would like to see more text and it also needs an inline citation for the 'Chart performance' section.
• No. 7 (brand) article - moved to main space on 1 December, so also new enough; 1677 characters but 448 seem to be copied from the Boots UK article and 280 are a quote, so I'd say this one also needs more text.
• Hook - I can't actually see the references supporting the "on the back of digital downloads" part of the hook (maybe I'm not reading this correctly though!)?
• QPQs - I've just had a very quick flick through Launchballer's talk page and one archive and it looks as if there are quite a number of DYK credits, so I think this nomination also needs two QPQs?

I fixed a couple of DAB links; I've left a note on Launchballer's talk page. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Lengths - I'll get onto that immediately.
• Just checked the hook, it's 216 characters so removing the bit about "digital downloads" seems the obvious answer.

ALT1: ... that "Sexy Lady" by Jessie J charted at #22 on the UK Singles Chart after it was featured in a Boots No. 7 advert despite the fact that it was not physically released as a single?

• See User talk:BlueMoonset#QPQs. I've had a recent problem with them, I'm working my way through them.--Launchballer 13:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sifting and winnowing

Template:Did you know nominations/Lilian Bland--Launchballer 13:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for responding so promptly, Launchballer, if you drop a quick note here when you have everything in place, I'll check through everything again. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that quotes count so long as they are not blockquotes, but fixed anyway. How's it looking?--Launchballer 22:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on these, Launchballer. Indeed block quotes don't count - but if lengthy quotes are used they shouldn't be in the text! But never mind as you have addressed the problem. I've been through both the articles this morning and made some slight amendments, please check that I've done them correctly. I think we are just about there but I think it would be better if you could re-word a couple of phrases that are being thrown up in the Sexy Lady article as the same as the source:

• "protect and perfect anti ageing beauty serum did indeed work leaving skin visibly smoother"

• "the number seven was often used to signify perfection and boots wanted it to stand out"

Also, please remember to complete the review of Template:Did you know nominations/Lilian Bland - it might be a good idea to put a note on Andrew Davidson's talk page ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Andrew said he'd fix the loose ends, which would lead me to believe that he will fix those himself. He has not edited since that post. You tagging him in this post should hopefully remind him - if not we can get the other Andrew, Andrew Gray, to fix the issues. The two close paraphrasing issues have been fixed.--Launchballer 23:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those, Launchballer.

• The Sexy Lady article is now 1690 characters of readable prose (No. 7 article is 1779 characters), every para is cited, no copyvios/close paraphrasing now showing - other review detail for both is given above. No images used.
• The ALT1 hook is 179 characters, correctly formatted and supported by refs #2 and #3 in Sexy Lady and ref #3 in No. 7, so everything all good about the articles now.
• I do think you still need to sort out a second QPQ before this can be fully approved - to simply comment a QPQ is needed is not really a review. I do appreciate there was no response from the nominator at Lilian Bland - I've double checked and a ping on a template doesn't work, so if you want to continue with reviewing that nomination it'll be necessary to leave a note on Andrew's talk page although it does look as if someone else has now suggested a different hook for it so may well be taking up that review. I realise reviewing can seem daunting if you're not accustomed to it but, honestly, once you get into it, it's not that hard! If you still want to stick with the Lilian Bland nomination, indicate you've read through the article, check for newness, character count, copy vios, image license etc - pretty much all the stuff is straightforward. If you want to go for reviewing a different nomination (geez, there sure are a lot of them! ), just look for the same - you can see from on this nomination of yours that the original reviewer has been advised the review was not sufficient. I will happily sign this double DYK off as soon as a more complete attempt at a review is done - if you feel you need any help with a review at all, just ask, I will always try to help and I'm sure others with more experience (for instance BlueMoonset and Crisco) will too.

Both articles and hook are ready - just waiting a more complete second QPQ. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done.--Launchballer 19:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

second QPQ is FTC v. Activis, Inc.. Thank you, Launchballer. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)