Template:Did you know nominations/J. S. Wood

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Nmillerche (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

J. S. Wood[edit]

(
)

Created by Moonraker (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 10:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC).

  • for April 1st @Moonraker. If not successful then there is a link for the novel which could then be included and leave out the Ghost Club angle. Victuallers (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
unrequired QPQ=The Gentlewoman Victuallers (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • - Article new enough and long enough at time of nomination. QPQ confirmed. Interesting hook if verifiable. All paragraphs cited but references need improving. Few issues: (1) Major issue is that the hook fact is not included in the article. Nowhere is there a mention of the state of the writers who contributed to the novel nor their membership in the Ghost Club. Please edit the article to ensure that this information is present. (2) Minor copy editing for grammar/vocabulary needed, i.e. fix "business man, fund raiser...". (3) Needs to be edited for neutrality. Statements such as "As editor, he was successful in attracting many well-known writers of the day", "his innovative touch", "In the capacity of an unpaid but expert fund-raiser" sound overly promotional. (4) The issue with Marie Corelli also seems to have been given too much prominence. Other improvements possible. EagerToddler39 (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I think your pount about Marie Corelli isnt important in a small article. However I have added more of the hook fact but we have a problem in that the gag hook (above) depends on people knowing that Conan Doyle thought we might be able to talk to him after he was dead. That fact (the Ghost Club) is irrelevant to the J. S. Wood article - and I would not just push it in just to make a joke. So I guess the hook above won't work. I have a more conventional hook below ... Victuallers (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • - You have not addressed most of the issues raised before. (1) The hook fact is still not supported in the article. The purpose of DYK is not to go off assumptions that people know XYZ but rather to direct them to an article that will tell them about XYZ. With the original and alternative hooks you proposed nowhere is there a mention of Wood "arranging" anything, Bram Stoker's name isn't mentioned in the article, nor is there mention that they never agreed on a plot. The hook in its entirety must be taken from the article to which readers are being directed. (2) No copyediting was done. Fund raiser is not the correct noun - remove the space. (3) The article's voice is not neutral. I understand that the phrases I highlighted are paraphrases. However they need to be edited further to remove the promotional slant. These are not the only statements that need correcting - just a few I wished to point out specially. EagerToddler39 (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, EagerToddler39. I wasn't aware of this nomination, had created the page at much the same time as The Gentlewoman, which I did nominate. Have done more work on it, taking out the two Fenella references which were there and adding some better ones. This suggestion has a different take on that:
I do think "The Fate of Fenella" provides a good hook and was sorry I didn't think to use it for The Gentlewoman. Failing that, perhaps this:
  • Good improvements thus far. Article requires a bit more copyediting to remove close paraphrasing though. Article -"The eldest and only surviving son of another Joseph Wood" / Source - "The eldest and only surviving son of the late Joseph Wood". Both Alts are verified by inline sources. I like Alt2 best, however, I would rephrase the hook slightly; the current wording too closely reflects the wording used in the article. EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hello again. I forgot to state the author of the 1905 volume of Armorial Families, so I have now added Arthur Charles Fox-Davies, with a link. He died in 1928, so that source is out of copyright. I can try to find new wording if you still think it's needed. On the hook, I also prefer Alt2. I included a quotation from the source to deal with your previous concern. Perhaps we could say this "...a novel by twenty-four different writers without any collaboration between them?" Moonraker (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You still need to fix the close paraphrase issue here Article -"The eldest and only surviving son of another Joseph Wood" / Source - "The eldest and only surviving son of the late Joseph Wood". The recommended wording for ALT2 sounds good - except I would stop at "a novel by twenty-four different writers without any collaboration" (between them would be redundant since collaboration takes care of that). Please name it alt4 and I'd approve that one once everything is in order. EagerToddler39 (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • EagerToddler39, I have made it "the first son of another Joseph Wood". I agree that "between them" is not needed, and I'm not sure"different" adds anything, either. So we have
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/J._S._Wood&oldid=598782021"