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.
Comment: Not sure if {{'s}} is the correct thing to use here, please feel free to correct!
Frzzl talk; contribs 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I replaced it with the correct template: {{`s}}. See
WP:DYKG#C7. MANdARAX •
XAЯAbИAM 01:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment. I don't think "Theory of Life" unadorned is descriptive enough; especially since that wasn't strictly speaking the full title of Coleridge's work, and it's quite obscure to the general public. Also, authors commit plagiarism, not works. And where exactly he made the accusation doesn't seem that interesting. People do know Coleridge, though, so highlight that; he's not obscure. Maybe:
I'd suggest ALT1 of these, succinctness is better, and the Theory of Life article is correctly tagged for cleanup.
As a side, no fun comment: There aren't strict rules on QPQ. So by the letter of the law, that is probably fine. However, the spirit of QPQ is one promotion, one review, to keep the balance. QPQ for failed nominations are fine, but in general, it's ideal if there was some effort that went into it - that it was an "interesting" failed nom. The linked QPQ was just a speedy close that required 0 effort. It needed to be done, yes, but I'd humbly suggest using a different QPQ and not really considering that kind of "review" as counting. (But, to be clear, this is ultimately up to you.)
SnowFire (
talk) 20:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
On second thought, I guess I might as well do a full review. I've made a few edits to the article, but they're minor. New enough, long enough, citation at the end of every paragraph, hook is verified. I think ALT0 fails interestingness, and would prefer ALT1, with ALT2 as a backup if nominator really feels the link to Theory of Life is important. Per above, QPQ is met, but by the absolute bare minimum, and I'd prefer (but won't mandate) a different QPQ.
Frzzl: Feel free to chime in on if ALT1 or ALT2 works for you, and if you're willing to substitute a different QPQ. But largely looks good to me.
SnowFire (
talk) 21:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
No problem with the QPQ, if you'll accept a short but still complete review, hopefully
Template: Did you know nominations/WoodmenLife Tower works. I'm fine with ALT2 - I agree that ALT0 wasn't interesting, I don't really think ALT1 passes either; the contrast between the grandeur of "Theory of Life" and plagiarism is personally what I think makes it mainpage-able. Thank you very much for the review!
Frzzl talk; contribs 21:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I've boldly replaced the QPQ above. Yes, that's fine.
ALT1 and ALT2 are approved, although promoter should note preference for ALT2 by nominator above.
SnowFire (
talk) 22:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
Comment: Not sure if {{'s}} is the correct thing to use here, please feel free to correct!
Frzzl talk; contribs 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I replaced it with the correct template: {{`s}}. See
WP:DYKG#C7. MANdARAX •
XAЯAbИAM 01:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment. I don't think "Theory of Life" unadorned is descriptive enough; especially since that wasn't strictly speaking the full title of Coleridge's work, and it's quite obscure to the general public. Also, authors commit plagiarism, not works. And where exactly he made the accusation doesn't seem that interesting. People do know Coleridge, though, so highlight that; he's not obscure. Maybe:
I'd suggest ALT1 of these, succinctness is better, and the Theory of Life article is correctly tagged for cleanup.
As a side, no fun comment: There aren't strict rules on QPQ. So by the letter of the law, that is probably fine. However, the spirit of QPQ is one promotion, one review, to keep the balance. QPQ for failed nominations are fine, but in general, it's ideal if there was some effort that went into it - that it was an "interesting" failed nom. The linked QPQ was just a speedy close that required 0 effort. It needed to be done, yes, but I'd humbly suggest using a different QPQ and not really considering that kind of "review" as counting. (But, to be clear, this is ultimately up to you.)
SnowFire (
talk) 20:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
On second thought, I guess I might as well do a full review. I've made a few edits to the article, but they're minor. New enough, long enough, citation at the end of every paragraph, hook is verified. I think ALT0 fails interestingness, and would prefer ALT1, with ALT2 as a backup if nominator really feels the link to Theory of Life is important. Per above, QPQ is met, but by the absolute bare minimum, and I'd prefer (but won't mandate) a different QPQ.
Frzzl: Feel free to chime in on if ALT1 or ALT2 works for you, and if you're willing to substitute a different QPQ. But largely looks good to me.
SnowFire (
talk) 21:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
No problem with the QPQ, if you'll accept a short but still complete review, hopefully
Template: Did you know nominations/WoodmenLife Tower works. I'm fine with ALT2 - I agree that ALT0 wasn't interesting, I don't really think ALT1 passes either; the contrast between the grandeur of "Theory of Life" and plagiarism is personally what I think makes it mainpage-able. Thank you very much for the review!
Frzzl talk; contribs 21:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I've boldly replaced the QPQ above. Yes, that's fine.
ALT1 and ALT2 are approved, although promoter should note preference for ALT2 by nominator above.
SnowFire (
talk) 22:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)