- 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Johnnie Boden
edit... that Johnnie Boden takes a sprout to work once a week?
- Reviewed: Put here
Created by Matty.007 (talk). Self nominated at 20:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC).
The article is new (created 25 March 2014), barely long enough (1,600 characters, excluding headers, references etc) and relies on three main newspaper articles as it's cited references. There are a number of close paraphrasings of those references contained in the article. The grammar in the article is also 'clunky" (i.e. Boden had been robbed, hired a dishonest worker, leading his inheritence (sic) to be gone in three years).
- The hook is short enough and properly cited. It is however misleading in stating that he "takes a sprout to work once a week", as Sprout is the name of his dog (correct wording would be "takes Sprout to work once a week" or "takes his dog, Sprout, to work once a week" - neither or which are particularly "hooky"). Needs work. Dan arndt (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, forgot to mention that this is for April Fools. Which parts are close paraphrasing? Wording changed. Thanks, Matty.007 18:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- As Boden's dog is called Sprout it is incorrect to state he "take a sprout" it may be better worded to say "takes his Sprout" or "takes Sprout" - I understand that the intention is for April Fools but it still has to make some sort of grammatical sense and be factually correct.Dan arndt (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, forgot to mention that this is for April Fools. Which parts are close paraphrasing? Wording changed. Thanks, Matty.007 18:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Since the original hook wasn't approved in time for April Fools Day, a new ALT1 hook should be supplied for regular DYK use that works in a normal context. Once that's in place, then the review can recommence. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not according to the rules on the April Fools Day page, unless you now do a 5x expansion or turn it into a Good Article. There's nothing about holding over for next year. Can't you come up with something worthwhile on this guy that isn't an AFD joke? BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
- In this context, AFD = April Fools Day, so AFD joke is April Fools Day joke. Waiting for the ALT hook or hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that, I thought there was some major issue with the article regarding Articles for Deletion.
- Alt 1: ... that Johnnie Boden, founder of Boden, is worth £215 million?
Review needed of ALT1 hook, and also to check whether the issues raised above and on the article's talk page have been fully addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)- There is no reference in the article to Johnnie Boden being worth £215M and no cited reference for that.Dan arndt (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- In the infobox, cited to BBC: ref says
But 52-year-old founder Johnnie Boden, worth £215m according to The Sunday Times Rich List, is not a man prone to extravagance
. Thanks, Matty.007 08:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)- A hook "should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change" and the "fact must be mentioned in the article" - which potentially excludes it only being mentioned in the infobox of the article. Also the hook should be "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article" unfortunately whilst Alt 1 is certainly short it isn't very 'catchy'.Dan arndt (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Using a more appropriate icon—the orange X means the nomination probably can't be saved, and this just needs a new hook. A source in the article gives Boden's 2012 wealth at £320 million, so the latest 2013 number of £215 million is a major change, and it is probably old news by now (depending on the company's performance in the stock market, if it's a public company). As Dan notes, hook facts should be in the article proper, not just in the infobox. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Catchy depends on the person, I find someone being worth hundreds of million interesting and want to find out how. The Sunday Times richlist (see User_talk:Matty.007#Johnnie Boden) is a tad confusing, so I am just clarifying (will add to article when clear). Thanks, Matty.007 13:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Matty.007, your reviewer has said it isn't catchy. I agree. (The guy was 255th on the Sunday Times list in 2012, not very high up, before his wealth dropped by a third.) Adding clarification won't help that; it's time to come up with a different hook if you want this nomination to succeed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK. Alt 2: ... that Johnnie Boden, founder of Boden, was previously a teacher, a publican, a stockbroker and a businessman?
- Alt 3: ... that Johnnie Boden, founder of Boden, "loathed" being a stockbroker? That's all I can think of for now, I know it's not great. Thanks, Matty.007 18:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Matty.007, your reviewer has said it isn't catchy. I agree. (The guy was 255th on the Sunday Times list in 2012, not very high up, before his wealth dropped by a third.) Adding clarification won't help that; it's time to come up with a different hook if you want this nomination to succeed. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Catchy depends on the person, I find someone being worth hundreds of million interesting and want to find out how. The Sunday Times richlist (see User_talk:Matty.007#Johnnie Boden) is a tad confusing, so I am just clarifying (will add to article when clear). Thanks, Matty.007 13:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- A hook "should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change" and the "fact must be mentioned in the article" - which potentially excludes it only being mentioned in the infobox of the article. Also the hook should be "short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article" unfortunately whilst Alt 1 is certainly short it isn't very 'catchy'.Dan arndt (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Out of those suggested Alt 3 probably is getting closer to be a 'catchy' hook - still needs work.Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- In the infobox, cited to BBC: ref says
- Matty.007, before this goes any further, where is the QPQ? It still says "Put here" at the top of the nomination—please add a quid pro quo review there without delay. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- After re-reading the article I can not help feel that whilst it is over the 15,000 character mark (only just) it is a border-line stub article. Based on the Croughton-London rule I am almost tempted to dismiss the DYK on the basis that it is actually a stub. Matty.007 if you look at expanding the relevance of the topic in the article it would certainly go a long way to helping me make my mind up on this one.Dan arndt (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Sophie Barthes for QPQ (subst at top broken as well, but I don't know how to fix). There is a very small amount on Boden, if you can point me to any major thing I have ommited, or another source, I will add it, but I couldn't see anything. Thanks, Matty.007 16:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed the template (Dan accidentally removed the braces on the bottom line, which caused the beginning of the template to show up as text; those ending braces are required). The article has 1771 prose characters according to DYKcheck. It does feel like a stub, and there are odd incongruities in the writing: why taking ten years would "ultimately" lead to his inheritance being gone in three is something I cannot understand. (There's also source disagreement about when the women's line started up: BBC says "a year later", but both the Telegraph and Independent agree it was three years [1994], so you can't just go with the former.) There is more meat in the cited sources that can be incorporated in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, probably a good idea to withdraw this then, and nominate if it ever gets to GA? Thanks, Matty.007 17:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable under the circumstances. Should I close it, then? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
