Template:Did you know nominations/Brenda Sexton


 * 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 PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Brenda Sexton

 * ... that Brenda Sexton increased Illinois film-related revenue to 147 percent in 2003, even though she had no background in film?
 * Comment: I have less than 5 DYK nominations, therefore am exempt from QPQ.
 * Comment: I have less than 5 DYK nominations, therefore am exempt from QPQ.

Created by Mchuedem (talk). Self nominated at 20:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC).
 * for Women's History Mointh? Victuallers (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree that it would make a good Women's History Month DYK. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Increased it to 147% of what? EEng (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Before she entered office, filmmakers were only spending $25 million in Illinois. Sexton was able to boost that amount to $62 million, a 147 percent increase in film-related revenue. Mchuedem (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

("Revenue" more connotes money coming in somewhere e.g. tax revenue or corporate sales revenue, not the expenditure point of view; and the increase you mention is "by 147%" not "of 147%", though an alternative wording could be "was responsible for an increase in spending of 147%".) EEng (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT1 ... that even though she had no background in film, Brenda Sexton increased filmmaking-related spending in Illinois by 147 percent in 2003?
 * Ahh, I see. Thanks for the edit. I think that it is clearer. Mchuedem (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Hey, come on! This has had a lot of attention so I went to give it a tick when I find this in one of the main references..."A year ago, Sexton had little film-industry credibility beyond a portfolio of movie reviews she wrote for a Web site and a home library of some 2,000 films." Is that "no background in film"? I'm out of this one. Victuallers (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why all the declaiming? It's easily fixed.
 * ALT2 ... though having "little film-industry credibility" when appointed managing director of the Illinois Film Office, Brenda Sexton increased filmmaking-related spending in that state by 147 percent in her first year? EEng (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "No background in film," to me, meant no background in the film industry. I guess that was unclear. It's different to watch movies and write film reviews than to be in the film business, but I can see how the wording of my previous could be seen as contradictory to the facts. I appreciate the Alt2. Mchuedem (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Regrettably, ALT2 is over the length limit at 210 characters and has been struck. This needs a valid hook before we can call for a full review. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, let's just rearrange and cut ALT2 to make a 182-character ALT3:
 * ALT3: ... that although having "little film-industry credibility", Brenda Sexton increased filmmaking-related spending in Illinois by 147 percent in her first year at the Illinois Film Office?
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Long enough, new enough when nominated, QPQ unnecessary (I wouldn't bother stating that you are exempt from QPQ personally, as I let QPQcheck be the judge of it), hook short enough and interesting. Every paragraph is sourced. Good to go, though could use some more links in the lede.-- Laun  chba  ller  08:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)