Template:Did you know nominations/The Winter Soldier (2018 novel)
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Winter Soldier (2018 novel) edit
- ...that literary critic Ron Charles said that the "beauty of Daniel Mason's new novel", The Winter Soldier, "persists even through scenes of unspeakable agony"? Washington Post
Created/expanded by Dmarbury94 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC).
-Article is new enough (created 31 October 2018), long enough (4339 chars), neutral, hook's cited in the article, minimal copyvio/closeparaphrasing, hook is well within character limit (156 chars), accurate, sourced, and possibly of general interest. No QPQ req; no image used. GTG. ——SerialNumber54129 15:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
This article needs copyediting before it appears on the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
The plot section was a copyright violation, with sentences copied from The Washington Post review but with synonyms substituted, hence leading to the mangled writing. With its removal this article falls well below the DYK requirements. Kim Post (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Kim Post: This appears to the nominator's first nomination, so perhaps we could give the nominator maybe one more week to respond to the issues? @Dmarbury94: Will you be able to expand this article again and write a new plot summary? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion on it, but the Did you know/Supplementary guidelines recommend more strictly enforcing the newness requirements when there is a large backlog of hooks, which seems to be the case at the moment. Can't Dmarbury94 try for 5x prose expansion and have the article re-evaluated then? Kim Post (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- On the other hand, we do tend to be more lenient for new DYK nominators. In any case, let's wait maybe a few more days for the nominator to respond (perhaps a week at most), and there's still no response, then this nomination can be closed. I'll leave them a talkpage notification in the meantime. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong opinion on it, but the Did you know/Supplementary guidelines recommend more strictly enforcing the newness requirements when there is a large backlog of hooks, which seems to be the case at the moment. Can't Dmarbury94 try for 5x prose expansion and have the article re-evaluated then? Kim Post (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Kim Post: This appears to the nominator's first nomination, so perhaps we could give the nominator maybe one more week to respond to the issues? @Dmarbury94: Will you be able to expand this article again and write a new plot summary? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Narutolovehinata5, Kim Post - this is one of my students. I've added a synopsis section for him and also added a development section as well. TBH, I don't know if this is a book with enough coverage to really expand the article five-fold, at least at this point in time. They could probably draw out the reception section but I'm not sure that there's enough coverage for that. Do you think that this current version would work for DYK? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Right now the article stands at 5,454 characters (longer than it was during the initial review). I'm not sure if it will be enough, but I will ping previous commenters @Serial Number 54129, Cwmhiraeth, SL93, and Kim Post: if they feel that the current expansion has been enough. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Yeah, go for it. ——SerialNumber54129 08:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Right now the article stands at 5,454 characters (longer than it was during the initial review). I'm not sure if it will be enough, but I will ping previous commenters @Serial Number 54129, Cwmhiraeth, SL93, and Kim Post: if they feel that the current expansion has been enough. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe a 5x expansion is necessary; as this was nominated as a new article, it just needs to meet the 1500 prose character minimum, and removing the copyvio material had dropped the article below that level. Now that it's far longer than 1500, it should be ready to review normally for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)- -Article was new enough at the time; now long enough (5454 chars), neutral, cited, and with per the above convo, no close paraphrasing or copyvio issues as it's quotes (particularly the jobbie form the NYT that's flagged up; Hooks are well within character limit (156), accurate, sourced, and possibly generally interest. No QPQ needed; No image req. GTG on ALT0, although the nom is probabbly on Xmas vacs by now :) ——SerialNumber54129 19:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I came by to promote this, and the length is all right, but I removed a lot of useless cites from the Reception section that basically said "this book was reviewed by this newspaper". It would be more helpful to actually write a line of review from each of these sources. Since the synopsis section takes up more than half the article, I suggest some expansion of the Reception section before we proceed. I also note that this article is listed under Category:James Tait Black Memorial Prize recipients, but nothing about any award is mentioned in the text. Yoninah (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I've expanded the reception section and also added a line to the lead. I investigated the prize and it looks like it doesn't apply to this - it was likely a mistake by the student thinking that mentions of a prior shortlist referred to this book. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, Shalor (Wiki Ed), that is so much better. The article really reads well now. I have added you to the DYK creation credits. No close paraphrasing seen in added sources. Restoring tick per Serial Number 54129's review. Yoninah (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)