Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Mothers and Other Liars

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Orlady (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Mothers and Other Liars edit

(
)
  • ... that the first agent who read the novel Mothers and Other Liars took so long to accept it that it had already been sent to 52 other agents, each of whom rejected it?

Created/expanded by PhoenixBlitzkrieg (talk). Nominated by JohnnyMrNinja (talk) at 23:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm nominating this article in hopes of getting it a spot for May 13, Mother's Day (US). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • New article has 2133 characters of readable prose according to DYKcheck, has inline sources, has no obvious similarities with sources, and seems neutral, though more reviews ought at some point be cited to demonstrate notability and to more accurately reflect its overall reception. (A starred review is a good start on notability for a first-time author.) Original hook is 165 characters, well under the maximum, and is supported by an inline source. ALT1 fails rule C6: "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." (I doubt adding the author's name is sufficient read world involvement.) I've struck it out. There are a few minor issues with the article:
  • While Bourret did work with the Aspen Writers' Foundation in the mid-1990s, the source does not make clear whether this was the writer's group that urged her to find an agent for the book many years later, after her time in Dallas. The article can't be specific about which group it was or even where it was unless another source has that information. (She apparently divides her time between Texas and Colorado.)
  • In Reception, the sources link to "Library Journal", not "Library Review"; Library Journal is the name of the magazine that did the reviews. When you change it, call it "Library Journal", not "The Library Journal".
Basically, the original hook looks fine; it's the article that needs a couple of corrections. It should be an easy fix, with the possibility of still making the Mother's Day prep areas, which will start loading shortly. I hope the article is expanded, too, but that's outside the remit of this review. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I'm suggesting ALT2 and I'll take a look at the areas you've noted. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe I've addressed the specific issues you've mentioned. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • ALT2 ... that the novel Mothers and Other Liars's plot of a teenage runaway raising a baby found in a trashcan was inspired by author Amy Bourret's work in child advocacy?
  • The corrections look good; I've made a couple of minor adjustments to the final section. The new ALT2 is better and within the rules, but it's citing the plot of the novel, not the theme. It might work better if you start with "that the plot of the novel" and go on from there. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Issues have been addressed, both hooks are valid, reviewer has a preference for the original over ALT2 (from which I have removed the struck-out "theme"). Ready for insertion under Mother's Day, where this will move in a couple of minutes, even though the first wave has been placed (and redistributed). BlueMoonset (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Mothers_and_Other_Liars&oldid=1020665548"