Template:Did you know nominations/Winsor McCay, How a Mosquito Operates, The Sinking of the Lusitania

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Winsor McCay, How a Mosquito Operates, and The Sinking of the Lusitania's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 11:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC).

DYK toolbox

Winsor McCay, How a Mosquito Operates, The Sinking of the Lusitania[edit]

( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

A giant mosquito attacks a sleeping man in How a Mosquito Operates.

Alternative images: , , and lots more, all in the public domain 5x expanded by Curly Turkey (talk). Self nominated at 06:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

  • The readable text of Winsor McCay has been expanded in excess of 500% in the last two days. Because the book sources are offline I'll have to assume in good faith there are no copyvios. As for the hook, to say "cartoonist Winsor McCay created comic strips and animations..." is hardly surprising. Is there a more 'punchy' hook that can be chosen? A picture that illustrates an aspect of the hook would also be good. Sionk (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    • All the images I provided illustrate aspects of the hook—the giant mosquito, McCay himself, and the dinosaur. What did you have in mind?
    • Is this punchier?: "Winsor McCay pioneered comic strips and animation about..." Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The hook is currently a list of his more notable works. If he pioneered something, or performed an impressive feat maybe that would be a better fact ...for example "Winsor McCay, a pioneer of animation, made 4000 drawings on rice paper for his first animated short in 1911" or "cartoonist Winsor McCay pioneered the animation technique of 'inbetweening' but refused to patent it"? Sionk (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Except that this is about three articles (sorry, I forgot to bold two of them). Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • In that case, I'll just reject it. I can't see how nominating three articles in one DYK will work. As far as I know, articles should be nominated separately. This isn't Template:Find a way of linking several articles in 200 characters. Sionk (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with OCNative, it is permissible to have multiple articles nominated within one hook, which also allows for a longer than usual character count in the hook itself. All three articles need to be reviewed to ensure compliance with DYK rules; nominator is also required to undertake the equivalent number of QPQs, so Curly Turkey needs to do another couple of reviews. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I thought QPQ was one DYK for one DYK, rather than per article. I'm ahead on reviews, and I've added to more to the list above. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Just for reference: DYK Supplementary guidelines - H4: Where a hook has more than one new or expanded article in it, an article-for-article quid pro quo (QPQ) is required: one article reviewed for each bolded article in the hook. The consensus is that hook-for-hook reviewing is not acceptable in case of multiple nominations. As soon as a new nominator's hook includes articles beyond their fifth DYK credit, each of those require a separate QPQ review. I'm afraid I don't have time to review these interesting looking articles, so I'll mark this with an 'again' icon below and hopefully some one will do the reviews now you have all the QPQs in place. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Needs review for three articles now QPQs are in place. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Green tickY 5x expansion for How a Mosquito Operates. Date looks good and all files have public domain licenses. Article is neutral, sourced inline, and no close paraphrasing is evident. Offline references accepted in good faith.
  • Green tickY 5x expansion for The Sinking of the Lusitania. Date is good and all of the files have public domain licenses. Article is neutral, sourced inline, and no close paraphrasing is evident. Small point: This article lists 1,200 dead while the article on the sinking lists 1,198.
  • Green tickY 5x expansion for Winsor McCay. Date is good and all files have public domain licenses. Article is neutral, sourced inline, and no instances of close paraphrasing were detected. Offline references accepted in good faith.
  • All three articles are new enough and have been expanded at least 5x (there is some duplication of text across articles, but not so much that it would drop these below 5x). All of the articles are neutral, have ample inline citations, and do not appear to closely paraphrase. The hook is ~239 characters, which is acceptable since the hook includes three expanded articles. The hook is also interesting, accurate, neutral, and sourced. Three QPQs have been done. The mosquito image is in the public domain, is used in the article, and renders well at 100x100. The other images also meet these criteria, but would require adjusting the (pictured) note in the hook. Gobōnobō + c 06:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Winsor_McCay,_How_a_Mosquito_Operates,_The_Sinking_of_the_Lusitania&oldid=1028047421"