Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1908

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1908

edit
(
)

Created by Futurist110 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC).

Here is my QPQ for this DYK? nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Quatre Motets sur des thèmes grégoriens. Futurist110 (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Will review this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Interesting facts, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. Article suggestions:
  • I made the portraits smaller. The captions should unmistakably say who is pictured, less prose. Consider to make them a gallery, because they sandwich the text.
  • The lead should summarize facts from the body, thus doesn't need refs.
  • Please read (and it's a first sentence in a section): "Although he was previously the Democratic U.S. Presidential nominee in both 1896 and 1900 (losing to William McKinley both times), Alton Parker's defeat at the hands of President Roosevelt (who succeeded McKinley after his assassination) in 1904 gave William Jennings Bryan an opening to reassert his leadership in the Democratic Party as well as to compete for the 1908 Democratic presidential nomination." That is a sentence which I'd like to see split in two or three. It takes too long until we know who is the subject, - and then not even the subject but "Alton Parker's defeat", which lets the "he" of the beginning hang in the air.
Hook: imagine readers to whom the names say nothing, and perhaps come up with a different fact. I am no friend of piping the article, in general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Please allow me to address all of your concerns here. However, please give me several days. Futurist110 (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, take all the time you need. One more: I don't need the same ref sentence after sentence in the same paragraph. Just the hook fact needs a duplication. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I have now shrunk these pictures, added a bit more to the opening paragraph in this article, turned that long sentence into two clearer sentences, and came up with a different book here:
Anyway, exactly what else do I need to do here? Futurist110 (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Futurist110, Gerda Arendt, it has been over four weeks since the most recent post, well beyond the several days requested, and no edits have been made to the article since then. There is a limit, even to "all the time you need", and I think we've just about hit it. Significant progress will need to be made in the next seven days if this nomination is to stay open. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I have now fixed everything that Gerda Arendt suggested I fix here. Thus, do I need to do anything else for this DYK? nomination? Futurist110 (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Calling Wehwalt for I help whom I expect to know the topic. - I looked if I could approve it as it is, but no, not the hook, not the state of the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you want. Do you want advice on the sentence, or on 1908? If the first, I'd lose the "Although", then use one sentence to mention Bryan's defeats in 1900 and 1904. Then the second sentence is about Parker's defeat and the opening. If the second, you might want to make it clearer that Bryan was only 48 in 1908 and was expected to be a presidential candidate in future years as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I am the reviewer, and the author hasn't responded, - I'm just trying to rescue the nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
ALT1, thank you for that and the changes. - A few suggestions fofr the article remain: the images are all at the top, can you spread out some? The captions still tell stories, while someone not knowing the faces (like me) wants to know first who is pictured. The wording of the record of 30 is too close to the source for my taste, consider rewording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm very sorry, but the QPQ that was provided was grossly inadequate, having been approved stating that a QPQ had been provided two full days before the QPQ was actually provided, and no re-review was done as promised. Under the circumstances, a new, very careful QPQ review of some other article will need to be conducted for this nomination to receive final approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
What about now? : Template:Did you know nominations/Bhogeshwari Phukanani. Futurist110 (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, here's an extra QPQ for you: Template:Did you know nominations/Magdalena Wolińska-Riedi. Futurist110 (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
from me, but perhaps that doesn't count? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Forgive me, Futurist110, but I have to ask: how much time did you spend on these reviews? Looking at your contribution history, the "extra" QPQ appears to have been done in the space of two minutes; it is simply not possible to do an adequate DYK review in so short a time; it takes about that long to actually read the article, much less do all of the checks, and the sources were in Polish, which would have required extra time to check the hook's sourcing. The first of the two reviews completely ignores the grammatical problems in the approved hook, not to mention ignoring this unfortunate sentence (one of many problematic ones) in the article itself: Phukanani scummed to her bullet injuries 3 days later. How careful were you in checking both of these reviews? I don't see how either can be considered acceptable as a QPQ. I have had to reverse both of the ticks. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Why don't you show me an example of what a good QPQ looks like? Futurist110 (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Please see your talk page for my reply. Basically, it isn't the wording of the QPQ that I'm talking about here, though that is important, it's the care taken checking the article and hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, I have now tried following your advice on my talk page and thus did another QPQ here: Template:Did you know nominations/Zhang Shengmin. Futurist110 (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Significantly more time seems to have been spent reviewing the article for the new QPQ; including getting a translation to check the hook's accuracy. I'll leave it to Gerda Arendt to do a final assessment on this QPQ and provide an icon below, but it appears okay to me. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, both, and I agree with not using "General" for a time when he wasn't yet general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/William_Jennings_Bryan_presidential_campaign,_1908&oldid=811683294"