Template:Did you know nominations/John Cowan (photographer)

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

John Cowan (photographer) edit

Created by Edwardx (talk), Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC).

  • First thing I bumped into was the hook making a fact out of an opinion. Rather than taking the Jill Kennington quote as perfectly true fact, we should tell the reader that it is Kennington's opinion. Or we can remove the exact quote and summarize the thought, telling the reader that John Cowan's style of taking pictures was faithfully represented in the 1966 film. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • After that, the article is well-constructed, having at least one reference per paragraph, and the hook is referenced. The length and date are good. I found no duplicated text, or too-close paraphrasing. Edwardx performed the QPQ. Once we work out a hook solution the nomination is good to go. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've moved the first quote mark, so the quote is now very short, simply "pure Cowan". Edwardx (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see how a shorter quote solves the problem of the hook making a fact out of an opinion. How about if you say something like "Jill Kennington said", or that the scene "was described as" pure Cowan. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT1 works quite well, quoting the museum's evaluation. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)