Talk:The Best Sleepover in the World

Did you know nomination

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: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 21:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Jacqueline Wilson wrote a sequel to her 2001 novel Sleepovers called The Best Sleepover in the World? Source:
  • ALT1: ... that Jacqueline Wilson wrote The Best Sleepover in the World after realising how popular its prequel was? Source:
  • ALT2: ... that The Best Sleepover in the World includes the communication tool Makaton in it? Source:
  • ALT3: ... that The Best Sleepover in the World was dedicated by Jacqueline Wilson to a mother and daughter pair that helped her learn Makaton through their YouTube videos? Source:
  • ALT4: ... that four libraries in Hampshire held big sleepovers for 250 Brownies to celebrate the release of The Best Sleepover in the World? Source:
  • ALT5: ... that Jacqueline Wilson updated the characterisation of Lily in The Best Sleepover in the World to reflect the modern times? Source:
  • ALT6: ... that when writing The Best Sleepover in the World, Jacqueline Wilson worked with Disability Rights UK? Source:
  • ALT7: ... that Jacqueline Wilson included a TikTok influencer in The Best Sleepover in the World in order the reflect the updated time setting? Source:
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: I was struggling a bit with phrasing these, so please feel free to ask me any questions etc :)

Moved to mainspace by DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk). Self-nominated at 02:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Best Sleepover in the World; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment: @DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Which two hooks are your preferred favorites? If you have more than two, let me know. Just trying to narrow this down. Viriditas (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• I will share my thoughts: I would say ALT0, ALT1, ALT5, ALT7 are not very interesting and should probably be stricken. Just my opinion, so don't take it seriously. ALT4 made me laugh and might be something to think about going with as it is unusual and interesting. In addition to ALT4, I prefer ALT2, ALT3, and ALT6; those are my four favorites, but I wonder if the wording could be improved or if you like it the way it is. Viriditas (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• Fixed an error.[1] Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Minor copyedits.[2] I like your prose and writing style, but you've got way too many quotes, some of which can easily be paraphrased. I've noticed that this could be a problem for DYK, so I recommend selectively choosing to paraphrase the majority of your quotes. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Review: Way too many quotes, particularly in areas where you don't need to quote. Looking at the article, I think you can easily paraphrase at least 50% of the quotes, most of which are only one or two words (and leave the longer ones) which would be an improvement. Article is new enough and long enough. I prefer the hooks, ALT2, ALT3, ALT4, and ALT6. The rest should be struck, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• @DaniloDaysOfOurLives: I see you haven't made many edits towards this end. Can I offer my help with paraphrasing the quotes in the article? Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I am sorry for the lateness. I am currently unwell with impetigo and thus I have not been able to do as much usual editing and that is why I did not reply to this right away. I did some minor changes yesterday, but today I tried cutting down the number of quotes a lot. I have managed to cut down the number of quotes - the thing that I have struggled with is that I am trying to be very careful to not wrongly assume or misrepresent what the quote is saying, so please let me know if I have by accident. Many of the cut quotes I did not initially consider part of the quote count - many were to represent the sources (e.g. saying "her "subtle" messages"", as I was worried it would seem that the article is not abiding to Neutral POV. Thank you so much for your support, genuinely. I think ALT3 and 6 are best, now that I think about it. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries. It might help to cross out all the other hooks and highlight just ALT3 and ALT6 so we can move this along. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Done! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: While this isn't necessary or required, I recommend rewriting ALT3 and ALT6 (create new ALT7 and ALT8 hooks) to place the linked article first. In ALT3, the article appears as the second link, and in ALT6 it appears as the third link. While this is acceptable, the first links will inevitably steal views from your nomination, meaning less people will read this article. Something to consider. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so so much for this! I reworderd them both to put the link first, but I am unsure if the meaning now sounds unclear for ALT6... DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to try to improve this article. Looking at the reception section, I still think you can easily paraphrase many of these quotes. My approach is to reserve quotes for when you really can't paraphrase and it's important to get the authorial intent and meaning across. This is not the case here. You should be able to paraphrase most of this. Please give it a try. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Thank you for trying to paraphrase the reception section and other parts of the article. While I really appreciate what you are trying to do, it might be best to revert back to the previous version, because the attempt to paraphrase didn't work, and the changes ride the line of plagiarism. It may help for you to read our article on paraphrase, or to do a search on "how to paraphrase". I am very sorry about this. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: This is a quick reply as I'm about to head to bed but I will try again tomorrow/Tuesday after my classes finish – I'm sorry for the stress. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, but many of your earlier attempts to paraphrase are still in the article and are also problematic, so I'm going to make an attempt to fix those earlier attempts. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: The problem at hand is pretty bad. I don't want to reject this nomination, but the paraphrasing didn't work, and your earlier attempts at writing the article also have the same problems where you use the same language from the sources, sometimes with quotes, sometimes without. I think the article is short enough for you to go through it, one section at a time, and completely rewrite it. You could have this done in a matter of days. Leave the lead section for last. If you don't see the problem, I can provide many examples. Look at "Release and promotion". You write "Steve Forster, Hampshire County Council's executive member for education, expressed delight that the events took place due to believing that they would help foster a lifetime love of reading and books". That's the same or similar wording from the sources. I think most reviewers would reject at this point, but I really don't want to do that. I'm hoping you can find time to step up and give it a rewrite. I understand if you are busy with school or work and don't have the time to rewrite it, but right now, it is not close to passing in this state. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Let me know if you are going to address this soon. If you can't, I will reject it. You can try to bring it to GAN to give it a second chance. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry for the lateness, I have been thinking about this a lot and I am unsure of what to do. I have fixed the example you provided (I am not a fan of the current wording and that is why I preferred quotes, but oh well), but for the reception section I am really unsure of what to do. The reason I used quotes mostly is that it is not easy to convey what the reviewer's thoughts are by paraphrasing, as this is not paraphrasing facts but rather their opinions. I have tried several times over the past few days to paraphrase some of the quotes but it is very hard to do without sacrificing the reviewer's intent and detail. I will try again tomorrow but at this point I really do not know what to do. As for GAN, that is almost impossible as there is simply not enough coverage of the novel (believe me, I check every week for more sources so I can expand this article better). I am upset as I was really hoping for this to become a DYK but I genuinely have no idea what to do.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

To move forward, it might help to compartmentalize the entire process. We are both in agreement with the hooks, so we can put that aside for now and consider it done for the moment. So no need to worry about that. Do the same with all the other criteria. See how much better this is looking? Not so negative, right? So we are down to one problem and one issue alone: close paraphrasing. I understand that you think the previous paraphrasing using quotes was sufficient, but it really wasn't. There were even unquoted parts that were closely paraphrased. So that's the problem, and the old version doesn't work. So how do you move forward? You take it one step at a time and revise each section. It shouldn't take you more than a day or two or three. You currently have five sections. Put the lead aside and do that last since it's a summary of the entire article. So that leaves you four sections to deal with. Pick one and just focus on it for now. Go back and look at the sources, and see how you can better paraphrase it in your own words. The easiest way to do this is read the source, put it aside, and summarize what you just read (or the material you want to paraphrase) in a separate text file, making a note at the end of the sentence referring to the source. If you can't paraphrase without quoting, then you need to learn to paraphrase. Quoting should be used sparingly and should be reserved for significant ideas that can't be paraphrased. That's not the case for your quotes, as you are quoting common words and phrases. But again, the problem isn't just the quotes, it's also the unquoted material which follows too closely from the cited sources. This is why you need to rewrite and revise. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: I see you are making some progress. That's great! How about pinging me and letting me know when you think it's good to go? Take your time, no rush. Although, I have to say, I make the most progress when I pretend I have a deadline to meet. It gives me an extra push in the back of my mind as motivation to work harder and faster. So, I'm giving you a fake, non-existent deadline to meet! :-) Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thank you so much for your kindness and for being so nice and patient, I really appreciate. I have made some changes to the other bits and I just have the reception bit left. I have decided to cut down these three further quotes:

• "The reviewer, Joanne Brennan, called the book an "absolute delight to read" and that it would "enthral" children" --> The review, Joanne Brennan, enjoyed reading the novel and believed that it would fascinate children.

• "Pam Norfolk's review in Lancashire Evening Post called the sequel heartwarming and noted that it explored "those all-too-familiar worries about bullying, disabilities, siblings and friendships" that had been depicted in Sleepovers" --> Pam Norfolk from Lancashire Evening Post believed that the book was heartwarming and noted how it explored similar common themes - such as friendships, siblings, bullying and disability - that had been explored in the 2001 novel.

• "Gwendolyn Smith from i believed that the book did a "particularly good job of capturing the psychodrama of being an eight or nine-year-old girl"." --> "Gwendolyn Smith from i praised the book for it's portrayal of the "psychodrama" of young children.

However, I am really not sure as I am worried that this sort of paraphrasing means that it is not detailed enough. The reason I had used so many quotes in the reception is because I did not want to miss out the meaning and miss out on important details. I am worried that the paraphrasing examples from above are not good enough - I would expect to see this in the lead, not in the reception section, as they are not detailed enough, so I am not sure. Please let me know what you think before I implement the changes. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Reception sections have a bit more leeway than other sections when it comes to quoting material, but the issue that you keep running into is knowing when to quote and when and how to paraphrase. The best advice I can give you is to learn how to paraphrase by reading about it online, and then practice doing it. If you get it wrong, that's fine, because that's how you learn; we have to make mistakes to move forward. This is true with just about everything. Implement the changes you think are best and we will go from there. Don't be risk averse; if you feel like you are out of your comfort zone, that's a good sign you are on the right track. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - n

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Concerns about quoting and close paraphrasing listed above. This has been on DYK since December 28, 2023. Nominator appears to be busy with other things. I would recommend fixing the problems, nominating as GAN and revisiting the DYK in the future when you have more time. Also, I would focus on nominating one DYK at a time, as you have nominated many different DYKs as of late, but have little time to fix them. Please don't take this the wrong way. We all have time commitments. The good news is you can try again with a GA review. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your explanation. But as I have said before, it is impossible to get this to GA standards, there are not enough sources. I had actually planned to get the reception done tonight after seeing your reply but it is too late now. The reason I nominated 4 at the same time is because they were published at the same time (by me) and I needed to ensure they were nominated within 7 days. The 3 rejections have put me off nominating more for DYK as it has been too stressful. Thank you so much for your support though, I hope it didn't stress you out. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I think you can bring this to GAN. You just need to rewrite it in your own words. As for DYK, don’t nominate four at the same time. Work on one at a time until it is approved. Sorry for the bad news, but I don’t think this is the end; change your perspective and you’ll see it is only the beginning. I hope your day improves. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

References
References