Template:Did you know nominations/Get to Heaven


 * 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 Yoninah (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Get to Heaven

 * ... that Everything Everything's third album, Get to Heaven, was at one point bookmakers' favourite for the Mercury Prize, but was not ultimately nominated? Source 1: "Despite strong odds from bookmakers in the run up to the announcement, new albums from Blur, Paul Weller, Everything Everything and Laura Marling were not included." (The Telegraph) / Source 2: "Everything Everything are bookmakers’ favourites to win this year’s Mercury Prize ahead of tomorrow’s announcement of the 2015 nominees." (NME)

Improved to Good Article status by Fox (talk). Self-nominated at 15:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC).


 * QPQ review: Nakhl Gardani


 * Symbol question.svg Gorgeous work, ! Length is good, date of promotion checks out, no policy issues, quotes are sourced, and citations abound. I like the mention of bookies in the hook as an item of interest. I would propose two small changes to the hook though - we should include the year of the prize, and I think it reads a little stronger as "but was ultimately not even nominated". Just so the reversal comes through very strongly.
 * ALT1: ... that Everything Everything's third album, Get to Heaven, was at one point bookmakers' favourite for the 2015 Mercury Prize, but was ultimately not even nominated?
 * I'm not married to that though so I'm fine to strike it if you or any other reviewers hate it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, ! I'm a little iffy on the "even" construction as it might be seen as editorialising. Happy to hear other thoughts. — fox 23:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm not married to it, I just thought it served to emphasize the contrast - that they were the blatant favorite and then weren't nominated at all. It's an interesting reversal. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that while bookmakers gave Everything Everything's third album, Get to Heaven, 4/1 odds of winning the 2015 Mercury Prize, it was ultimately not among the 12 nominated? --Usernameunique (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, :) I think though that UK-style gambling odds might be a little jarring on the main page? I appreciate the extra detail, but I can't imagine the cursory reader will understand "4/1" without more context. — fox 17:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with fox on this one, "bookmakers' favorite" is more obvious to the casual reader. Not being from the UK, when I read "4/1 odds" I think, "yeah and?" not "wow that's crazy I want to know more." &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with fox on this one, "bookmakers' favorite" is more obvious to the casual reader. Not being from the UK, when I read "4/1 odds" I think, "yeah and?" not "wow that's crazy I want to know more." &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * So this has sat for a bit ... is it waiting for a green tick? If so, how about we go for ALT1? — fox 20:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Shit, sorry, I was waiting for more input from the other editor and forgot to come back here. Yes, I think we are Symbol confirmed.svg good to roll with ALT1. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)