- 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 MPJ-DK 11:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Tempt, Tease and Touch
edit
Improved to Good Article status by Aoba47 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC).
The second hook is problematic in that the title of the source is "Best Celebrity Scents" but the intro says "Here are the most popular celebrity scents". Which is it? Gatoclass (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: The source appears to be using the term "best" to refer to the perfumes' popularity. The source seems to use "best" and "most popular" interchangeably here so I do not see any major issue with the alternate hook. Either way, I believe my original hook is the stronger of the two here. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I've struck the alt. It was arguably a bit promotional anyhow. I will try to complete the review tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: I was starting to think that too as I was looking at it. I also agree that it is extremely odd about the whole "Best Celebrity Scents" and then "most popular" celebrity scents. Thank you again for your help! Aoba47 (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. I have identified another issue however; the article says "The perfumes received primarily negative feedback and received criticism as a failed attempt to revive the group's career" but neither of these statements are sourced, except for the inclusion of a single negative review of the perfumes, which does not prove the reviews were "primarily negative". Gatoclass (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: Corrected. This was a hold-over from when I had more negative reviews in the article. They were removed during the GAN review as they were deemed unreliable. Aoba47 (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: Any updates? It has been five days since your previous comment. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- My apologies, Aoba47, I've had a few distractions over the last few days. I haven't forgotten about this nomination, but I want to take another look at it before I decide on a pass. Gatoclass (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Having taken another look, I recall now that I wanted to be sure you were accepting of the changes I made to it before moving forward with the review. Gatoclass (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: No worries, I just wanted to make sure that I did not make any mistakes. I definitely accept the changes, as they made the article a lot better. Aoba47 (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall:
This article appears to be sourced almost entirely either to blogs or to press release type articles, which does raise the question of notability. However, the article has managed to survive on Wikipedia for several years, and even got itself a GA rating, so I am going to set aside my concerns and give this a pass.
Gatoclass (
talk) 10:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
This article appears to be sourced almost entirely either to blogs or to press release type articles, which does raise the question of notability. However, the article has managed to survive on Wikipedia for several years, and even got itself a GA rating, so I am going to set aside my concerns and give this a pass. Gatoclass (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)