Template:Did you know nominations/Brunette Coleman

Brunette Coleman
(
 * ... that tired of the "buggery business", Brunette Coleman wrote stories about "girls roll[ing] around together twanging elastic and straps" and with "the lusts of the male heterosexual gaze" in mind?
 * Comment: For quick reference, "tired of the 'buggery business'" is in the last sentence of the first paragraph in "Origins" and sourced to Motion, pp. 64–65; "about 'girls roll[ing] around together twanging elastic and straps'" is in second paragraph of above and sourced to Motion, pp. 86–87; "with 'the lusts of the male heterosexual gaze' in mind" is in second paragraph of "Trouble at Willow Gables": "Commentary" and sourced to Booth, p. xvi.

5x expanded by Brianboulton (talk). Nominated by Jappalang (talk) at 05:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Expansion easily big enough. However, the hook is very hard to make anything of (what is the 'buggery business'? Being gay? Being a rent boy? A euphemism for something else? It's not clear at all to the reader), and not mentioning that Coleman was the pseudonym of the famous Philip Larkin is surely robbing the hook of it's most interesting detail. References seem good, but please, choose another hook :) Malick78 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider a hook that uses hints to attract readers to be more "interesting" (I do not consider the real identity of Coleman as the article's most interesting detail). In the interest of catering to different viewpoints, there is the simple plain alternative below (which can be sourced to Thwaites, p. 58) .  Jappalang (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ALT1: ... that Philip Larkin wrote lesbian themed stories under the pen name of Brunette Coleman?




 * ALT2: ... that Philip Larkin, the Nobel-prize winning poet and author of "They fuck you up, your mum and dad", wrote erotic stories about lesbians using the pen name Brunette Coleman?
 * A more riveting hook! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 03:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Query: "They fuck you up, your mum and dad" is the first line of "This Be The Verse". Is it correct to write "author of 'They fuck you up, your mum and dad'" (a single line)?  Jappalang (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it doesn't matter, as that fact isn't mentioned in the article, so the hook isn't usable. Yomangani talk 10:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Age, length, neutrality, sources seem fine. No obvious copyvio, plagiarism or close paraphrasing. ALT1 is dull and the other two seem designed to provoke complaints but otherwise either is fine. I'm curious as to what is served by nominating this for DYK though. It's already been peer-reviewed and is currently at FAC, so presumably review isn't the aim. Exposure on the main page? Surely it will be nominated for TFA at some point, so I doubt that. Just because it can be? Yomangani talk 00:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not certain how to answer your query, Yomangani. As far as I can tell, DYK is open to any article that is new or has been expanded 5 times in terms of contents (subjected to a 5 day deadline).  There are no rules that disqualify a quality piece from being submitted to DYK.  On the contrary, it seems recent changes are to tighten the standards of the articles that would be presented by DYK; would that not even make this article a premium choice?  Personally, I view DYK as a chance to write interesting snippets to attract readers to the articles in question (snippets that would unlikely qualify for use in articles/pages that link the article in question) and that was I did for this submission.  Jappalang (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears the answer is "because it can be" then. I don't see which of DYK's goals is served by showing articles like this (peer-reviewed FA or GA candidates written by experienced editors) on DYK; it just saps reviewer effort. Still, once the hook is sorted, this is ready to go. Yomangani talk 10:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the blurb: from Wikipedia newest content. If 5x expansion can be shown within the time period, it qualifies as new content. Some of our articles have actually passed a GA review between nomination and featuring, with Kingdom Tower coming to mind. Showcasing new content has been a goal of DYK since it was started, and especially good articles that meet the criteria should not be penalized. The original doesn't seem overboard to me, but ALT2 is asking for complaints. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it doesn't qualify within the rules, just that it saps reviewer time for little benefit. Anyway, this isn't the place for such a discussion and I apologize for starting it. ALT2 isn't usable as: The "Did you know?" fact must be mentioned in the article and cited with an inline citation Yomangani talk 12:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The original hook is inaccurate as the stories about "girls roll[ing] around together twanging elastic and straps" were written by Larkin and Amis before the invention of Coleman. Yomangani talk 13:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As Larkin is Coleman, I thought it would not be totally remiss to attribute an earlier endeavour to "her". If that is unacceptable, then perhaps ALT3 as below ("fantasies about lesbians and bondage" is attributed to Rowe [2000], pp. 82–85 and 86).  Jappalang (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ALT3: ... that, tired of the "buggery business", Brunette Coleman wrote fantasies about lesbians and bondage with "the lusts of the male heterosexual gaze" in mind?
 * If the idea is to maintain the fantasy that Coleman was a real author (at least until the reader gets to the article), I don't like the blurring of her period with the pre- and post-Coleman eras, which is what the buggery business quote does here again. ALT4: "... that Brunette Coleman wrote fantasies about lesbians and bondage with "the lusts of the male heterosexual gaze" in mind?" Or as an apparent non sequitur: ALT5: " ... that the complete works of Brunette Coleman were not published until seventeen years after the death of Philip Larkin?"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yomangani (talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Either ALT could work. Jappalang (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)