Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Loraine Smith


 * 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 Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 21:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Charles Loraine Smith

 * ... that the foxhunting celebrity artist Charles Loraine Smith (pictured) had both his death and resurrection imagined in verse?
 * Reviewed: QPQ=Birch Lane
 * Comment: fixed faults and alts welcome

Created by Victuallers (talk). Self nominated at 17:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article size, length are fine. New enough. Hook is cited, and interesting. Green from me. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg This hook was pulled from P3 by . Pls see WT:DYK. --PFHLai (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I normally agree with most of EEng's corrections or objections to hooks, but I can't see that this really merited pulling from the queue. That said, I think EEng's suggested hook from the DYK talk page is better (though I would drop the "artist" as surplus to requirements):
 * ALT1 ... that the death and resurrection of foxhunting celebrity Charles Loraine Smith (pictured) were imagined in lighthearted verse while he was still very much alive? Belle (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the measured praise (and I mean no irony there). This wasn't like some of the other hooks I've pulled which were just flat-out wrong, but "had" in the original hook here very much reads as if he had commissioned the poetry mentioned, which isn't the case, and I certainly interpreted it that way. (I thought -- "How arrogant, to have a poem composed about your own resurrection specifically".) As you'll notice from my additional comments at the Talk DYK discussion linked above (re the somewhat misleading use of the word resurrection) I think it's fine if a hook turns out to be using a word in an ambiguous way which adds to its intrigue. But we want to induce the reaction "Oh wait! I see! What the hook really means is..." only where the reader will be amused by incongruity, not where he will be annoyed for having been misled. EEng (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody would have been that upset. As far as I know there have been no actual resurrections (religious types and occultists may disagree) and "had" doesn't necessarily convey "ordering", so I don't think the reader would have been too surprised to find it didn't mean that here. No harm done though; somebody can tick this with your Alt suggestion (I can't, or wouldn't feel right doing so, as I've copy edited the article a bit and added your alt suggestion here). I've rechecked against the criteria and everything is fine with plagiarism, length, date, QPQ, neutrality. Belle (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess upset was overstating a bit. I guess I meant more it was disappointing to find he hadn't been some rich guy who paid to have a resurrection poem composed in his own honor. Anyway, thanks for moving this along. EEng (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can someone review ALT1 so we can move this along? EEng (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , can you do that? EEng (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No (see above) but I can wave my arms in an attempt to attract somebody's attention. [waves arms frantically as she see a sail on the horizon] Belle (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Belle. Well here comes Super DYK Avenger Storye book on a somewhat flagging and increasingly reluctant white horse to save the day. Or not. Here goes, then. --Storye book (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Review of ALT1: Acceptable, short enough, checks out online with citation #13. Above reviews by Rsrikanth05 and Belle taken on trust. The image is free, it appears in the article and I have corrected its filepage licence. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand your lack of enthusiasm. Me too. Maybe we should apologise to @Rsrikanth05 for the waste of his/her time, for a perfectly good review. Some humility required I think. The new hook is marginally better, but that's at the cost of no one really caring. Victuallers (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @ Victuallers. Perhaps I should clarify. Yes I care about this nom and helping to clear the general backlog, which is why I am here. And I don't feel that Rsrikanth05's time has been entirely wasted, since it's been reflected in the final review with all due respect. My flagging is not in response to this nom - it's the general feeling of low morale currently in DYK for reasons you are no doubt aware of.--Storye book (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No criticism of your efforts which are entirely appreciated. However my morale is low and I appreciate you working through the morale barrier to create something of value. However this should not be necessary. As notes, this work is required because one person misunderstood the meaning of "had" and even with their interpretation it should have just been waved through. (Words can be tricky e.g. Belle did not use "faint praise"). I understand the @EEng may have made a mistake, but its not a small one and much needless energy has been wasted. This is not the only hook that has been pulled for trivial reasons. Victuallers (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Keeping green tick visible. Still good to go. --Storye book (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)