Talk:General Electric Showcase House

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 CSJJ104 (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created by No Swan So Fine (talk). Self-nominated at 14:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • New enough, long enough, well-sourced, and plagiarism-free – but I'm a little concerned about these lines:

    When the Reagans added another bedroom to the house, Michael believed it was for him, but it was for Ron's nurse. Michael wished to live with the family permanently and be picked up from school by Nancy like her other children and expressed his hurt to his father.

    It seems like these aren't very relevant to the home itself, and instead focus on Michael, a living person. Other than that, the hook is cited to Architectural Digest and interesting. The QPQ checks out (I had to change the tick from to , as the nom isn't ready yet), so we're almost there – nice job, No Swan So Fine! A fascinating article :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 22:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've removed that passage. I wanted to highlight the complex family dynamics at play within the house that I felt were missing from our other Reagan family biographical articles. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    not a bad impulse – who knows, maybe that'll get its own article some day. This one's good to go! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 22:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No Swan So Fine, since your QPQ wasn't properly finished—you approved the nomination without a QPQ being provided, and it was subsequently put on hold by a potential promoter for lack of said QPQ—I'm putting this on hold until you've completed that review. Please let me know when you've gotten it done, and I'll remove the hold here. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)'[reply]
    @BlueMoonset: in the interest of time and backlog clearance, I've confirmed that Epicgenius's QPQ was done properly and stamped it. I wouldn't call that disqualifying for promotion, since the review is still basically NSSF's. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    theleekycauldron, up to you. As long as NSSF doesn't make a habit of approving noms with missing QPQs, I'm good. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, I hear you; seemed to me like they acknowledged the missing QPQ, and just forgot to update the status of the nom, so – honest mistake. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry all - I'll be more attentive. Epic is a phenomenal editor and I hope they weren't put out. Many thanks for your efforts. No Swan So Fine (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]