Template talk:Did you know/The Code (UK TV series)

The Code (UK TV series)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as 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 Gatoclass (talk)

• ... that the BBC is offering a specially commissioned mathematical sculpture to whoever can crack The Code?

Created by ISD (talk). Self nom at 13:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:
Hook

• Length, format, content rules: Rather promotional, methinks. I'd like a second opinion to see if it is too promotional. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Source: Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Interest: Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Image suitability, if applicable: None. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• ALT hooks, if proposed:

Article

• Length: Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Vintage: Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Sourcing (V, RS, BLP): Only one third-party source. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Neutrality: Seems promotional. For example, the write up the third episode reads "Du Sautoy looks at what happens next. He looks at the ability to predict a lunar eclipse, overturns the lemming's suicidal reputation, avoids being crushed to death, reveals how to catch a serial killer and discovers that the answer to life, the universe and everything isn't 42 after all - it's 1.15. " which needs major rewriting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Plagiarism/close paraphrasing: A couple problems. The first entry is the most troubling. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Copyvio: No images.
• Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting:

Comments/discussion:

Needs some major work to eliminate the promotional tone, add more third party sources, and remove close paraphrasing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to reject this, not only because it is very basic, but because it lacks a critical reception section, which I think is essential for any TV program. Gatoclass (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree that a "critical reception" section is essential for any TV program, but I do think that an article about a TV program should cite some sources that aren't the producers and presenters of the program. This program is an interesting topic that has been covered by multiple independent sources, some of which should be cited. (I added a reference to an article at Wired, and I found some other solid sources that could be cited.) It's a good topic for DYK, so I hope the creators will rise to the challenge to make the article less like an advert. --Orlady (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No response from nom in almost 2 weeks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)