- 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 97198 (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
R. H. Naylor
edit
- ... that after R. H. Naylor was credited with predicting the R101 airship crash (pictured), he became Britain's first regular astrology columnist?
- ALT1:... that R. H. Naylor was the first sun sign astrologer?
- Reviewed: Samaritans Radar
Created/expanded by Edwardx (talk), Philafrenzy (talk). Nominated by Edwardx (talk) at 23:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC).
- I don't think it was necessarily intentional, but there's a bit of a pro-astrology bias to the article. It's one of those things where a lot more attention tends to be paid to successful predictions, so they're likely the most notable parts of his career, but WP:FRINGE rather blocks us from treating astrology as an uncontroversial subject. It's a balancing act. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Certainly none was intended. I had tried precisely not to do that. Which specific bits concern you? Philafrenzy (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Honestly, it's mainly a couple phrases, but in a short article that's enough. "in which forecast he was correct" reads like copying a pro-astrology source's editorializing, and the R101 could use a somewhat more cautious phrasing, though I'm not sure what. These things are hard, because you don't want to bog the article down too much with discussion of the merits of astrology, but I think that, given he invented the sun signs, that's a fairly good place to add a small amount of appropriate criticism, which should deal with the issue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- "in which forecast he was correct" was intended as humour! It was a safe bet on his part that Princess Margaret would have an "eventful life" wasn't it? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reworded it a bit and removed the tag. Hope you are OK with it now. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
QPQ review has still not been provided after over three weeks. Once it has been completed, a new reviewer can be called for. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Full review needed, which should include a neutrality check per the previous reviewer's findings. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
This article is a five-fold expansion. It is new enough and long enough. The image is appropriately licensed and the hook fact has an inline citation. I consider the article neutral and I detected no close paraphrasing issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
