Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Joshua Chaplin

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 Allen3 ^talk 23:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Charles Joshua Chaplin edit

(

)

... that Charles Chaplin was known for his elegance in portraying young women (example pictured)?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Quod scripsi, scripsi

5x expanded by Hafspajen (talk), Sagaciousphil (talk). Nominated by Hafspajen (talk) at 10:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC).

Article, image, and QPQ are good, but hook isn't very hooky. You might want to find a more interesting fact, like his Aurora being banned for eroticism, or the bidders who thought they were going to get a work by Charlie Chaplin.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Brainy J. I've added a couple of ALTs below. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that judges tried to ban a Charles Chaplin painting (example pictured) as they felt it was "too erotically suggestive"?

ALT2 ... that a painting (example pictured) by Charles Chaplin was mistakenly thought to be the work of Charlie Chaplin?

I like these hooks. ALT1 would be especially good if we can display the specific painting that the Salon took issue with.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, I don't really want to change that hook. It is actually not mine, I asked user Crisco 1492 to do it for me, it is by his courtesy, see hereand I liked that very much. Crisco's hooks are rather catchy, and I trust him. And I do think it is rather hooky. There was no picture we have that it was involved at the Saloon Hafspajen (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

(watching) I agree with Hafspajen and Crisco on the effect of simplicity of the original hook. It is interesting because people will first think of the other Charlie Ch. - If one of the ALTs, I think the pictured clause should be after the man's name, but it is not "elegant", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite so, Gerda. Se here, [1], one article got hit 9,318 just because of the hook, (and that was Crisco's hook...) ... that a Norwegian school (pictured) was named for Thor and built by a hammer? And I do think this first original hook is rather hooky. I would give it a go, and see what happens. He is rather an expert on hooks. Hafspajen (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC) ^{if this article will be seen by people, it is going to be because of the hook, not because of the artist, who is a rather nice but not a really a genius. (that is my oppinion)}