- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Michael Sherard edit
- ... that fashion designer Michael Sherard was employing 40 assistants at the time of the Queen's coronation?
- ALT1:... that fashion designer Michael Sherard's clients included Margot Fonteyn, Margaret Lockwood, Phyllis Calvert and Gladys Cooper?
- Reviewed: not a self-nom
Created by Libby norman (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 21:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC).
- Comment I think the first hook is punchier, but is there any connection between the coronation and the company? Or is this term simply a different way to say "in the early 1950s"? If there is a connection I think we should have it in the hook, if there isn't, then I strongly suggest it shouldn't be in the hook. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I prefer the first hook; it's much more interesting. I can see Maury's point, but both the source and the article suggest that the coronation was behind an increase in work. Hook checks out, article is of ample length for DYK's criteria and was nominated in a sufficiently timely fashion. Good to go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Maury that the connection between the coronation and increased business isn't clear. I edited the article to reflect the information in the source, and propose this alt:- ALT2: ... that fashion designer Michael Sherard employed 40 assistants to meet the demand for new outfits to be worn at events surrounding the Coronation of Elizabeth II? Yoninah (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note that the review of ALT2 should also extend to checking neutrality and close paraphrasing in the article, which were not mentioned in the initial review. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've been reviewing DYKs for longer than you've been editing. As in every DYK review I've ever done, if I didn't say there was an issue with neutrality or close paraphrasing, I didn't find one. If we can afford to be this pedantic about proper reviews by experienced reviewers, the backlog must have been cleared while I was asleep! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm glad you did check for those things, but it's unreasonable to expect people to keep a mental list of reviewers and their longevity and accuracy when it takes maybe 15 seconds to type "neutral, no close paraphrasing found". Take pity on the rest of us. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- ALT2 may well be more precise, but hooks generally seem to work better when they are shorter and punchier. The original hook is not untrue or significantly misleading, and the reader can always (and hopefully will) read the article to understand the wider context. So, I for one would prefer the original. Edwardx (talk)